Lyons v. Baker

180 F.2d 893
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
DecidedMay 3, 1950
Docket12970
StatusPublished
Cited by12 cases

This text of 180 F.2d 893 (Lyons v. Baker) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Lyons v. Baker, 180 F.2d 893 (5th Cir. 1950).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Claiming federal jurisdiction for his suit as one arising under the Constitution and laws of the United States, plaintiff alleged that in reporting to the judge of a circuit court for the State of Florida, a grand jury, convened on behalf of the State of Florida for Martin County, in order to harm, libel and injure the plaintiff, made fálse and malicious charges against him in violation of his civil rights.

The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint, setting up among other grounds, “The complaint shows upon its face that this Court is without jurisdiction of the subject matter and parties”, and “The matters and things set forth in the said complaint shows upon their face that this cause does not arise under the following parts of the Constitution of the United States, namely; Article 1, Sec. 5; Article 3, Sec. 2; Article 4, Sec. 2 and the 14th Amendment and also the following laws of the United States, Title 8, Sections 41, 42, 43, 47, 48 and Title 28, Sec. 41, Subsections 12 and 14” [now § 1343], invoked by plaintiff.

The motion to dismiss was argued and submitted and the following order entered:

“Upon consideration, it is Ordered that said motion is granted. It appears from the complaint that the act complained of was done under judicial authority.”

Plaintiff is here insisting that in so ruling the court erred.

Appellees, urging that it did not, insist that, whether it was properly dismissed on the merits, it was certainly properly dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

We agree with appellees that no case for federal jurisdiction was made out and that the judgment of dismissal should be affirmed, not upon the merits but for want of federal jurisdiction.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Beker Phosphate Corporation v. Muirhead
581 F.2d 1187 (Fifth Circuit, 1978)
Beker Phosphate Corp. v. Muirhead
581 F.2d 1187 (Fifth Circuit, 1978)
John Paskaly v. Bryan P. Seale
506 F.2d 1209 (Ninth Circuit, 1974)
Monroe v. Pape
365 U.S. 167 (Supreme Court, 1961)
Coastal Petroleum Co. v. Collins
135 F. Supp. 203 (N.D. Florida, 1955)
Daly v. Stotts
126 F. Supp. 555 (W.D. Oklahoma, 1954)
McGuire v. Todd
198 F.2d 60 (Fifth Circuit, 1952)
Stefanelli v. Minard
342 U.S. 117 (Supreme Court, 1951)
Lyons v. Dehon
188 F.2d 534 (Fifth Circuit, 1951)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
180 F.2d 893, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lyons-v-baker-ca5-1950.