McQueen

Court of Claims

McQueen

506 F.2d 1406, 205 Ct. Cl. 847, 1974 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 60

CourtUnited States Court of Claims

DecidedOctober 25, 1974

DocketNo. 106-74

StatusPublished

This text of 506 F.2d 1406 (McQueen) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States Court of Claims primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

McQueen, 506 F.2d 1406, 205 Ct. Cl. 847, 1974 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 60 (cc 1974).

Pincite

Opinion

Court of Claims jurisdiction; tort claim; judicial irmnumity. — Plaintiff seeks to recover damages allegedly caused by various actions and improprieties of a federal judge and certain federal officials in connection with his imprisonment, which deprived him of rights guaranteed under the United States Constitution. On October 25,1974 the court issued the following order:

Before Davis, Judge, Presiding, SeeetoN and Kunzig, Judges.

“This case comes before the court on defendant’s motion, filed May 21, 1974, to dismiss plaintiff’s petition. Upon consideration thereof, together with the opposition thereto, without oral argument, it is concluded that plaintiff’s suit sounds in tort over which this court has no jurisdiction (see 28 U.S.C. §§ 1491 and 1346 and Byers v. United States, 121 Ct. Cl. 40 (1951), cert. denied, 348 U.S. 909 (1952); and Algonac Mfg. Co. v. United States, 192 Ct. Cl. 649, 663, 428 F. 2d 1241, 1249 (1970)). It is further concluded that this case should not be transferred to a United States District Court because of 28 U.S.C. §§ 1346 and 2680 and Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547 (1967), upholding the doctrine of judicial immunity.

“it is therefore ordered that defendant’s said motion to dismiss plaintiff’s petition be and the same is granted and the petition is dismissed.”

Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration was denied January 17,1975.

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

Court of Claims jurisdiction; tort claim; judicial irmnumity. — Plaintiff seeks to recover damages allegedly caused by various actions and improprieties of a federal judge and certain federal officials in connection with his imprisonment, which deprived him of rights guaranteed under the United States Constitution. On October 25,1974 the court issued the following order:

Before Davis, Judge, Presiding, SeeetoN and Kunzig, Judges.

“This case comes before the court on defendant’s motion, filed May 21, 1974, to dismiss plaintiff’s petition. Upon consideration thereof, together with the opposition thereto, without oral argument, it is concluded that plaintiff’s suit sounds in tort over which this court has no jurisdiction (see 28 U.S.C. §§ 1491 and 1346 and Byers v. United States, 121 Ct. Cl. 40 (1951), cert. denied, 348 U.S. 909 (1952); and Algonac Mfg. Co. v. United States, 192 Ct. Cl. 649, 663, 428 F. 2d 1241, 1249 (1970)). It is further concluded that this case should not be transferred to a United States District Court because of 28 U.S.C. §§ 1346 and 2680 and Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547 (1967), upholding the doctrine of judicial immunity.

“it is therefore ordered that defendant’s said motion to dismiss plaintiff’s petition be and the same is granted and the petition is dismissed.”

Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration was denied January 17,1975.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

506 F.2d 1406, 205 Ct. Cl. 847, 1974 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 60, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mcqueen-cc-1974.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack