United States v. Penney

D.C. Circuit

United States v. Penney

320 F. Supp. 1396, 1970 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9235

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedDecember 9, 1970

DocketCiv. A. No. 3472-70

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 320 F. Supp. 1396 (United States v. Penney) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

United States v. Penney, 320 F. Supp. 1396, 1970 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9235 (D.C. Cir. 1970).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM OPINION

GESELL, District Judge.

Defendant’s petition to remand this cause to the Court of General Sessions is denied.

The Court of General Sessions is not a federal court within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 451. Tate v. United States, 123 U.S.App.D.C. 261, 359 F.2d 245, 251 (1966). It is the counterpart of a state court and has, by Act of Congress, limited jurisdiction. Ridgley v. United States, D.C.Mun.App., 45 A.2d 475 (1945).

Numerous decisions in this jurisdiction have recognized the rule that generally prevails throughout the federal system that in cases involving federal officers, where defenses are available arising from their federal duties, the right of removal to the federal court is absolute. See, e. g., Brown v. Weschler, 135 F.Supp. 622, 624 (D.D.C.1955); Lemley v. Mitchell, 304 F.Supp. 1271 (D.D.C.1969). This broad doctrine has no exceptions and is a recognition of federal supremacy. Willingham v. Morgan, 395 U.S. 402, 89 S.Ct. 1813, 23 L.Ed.2d 396 (1969). It makes no difference whether the action sought to be removed is criminal, civil, ancillary or sui generis. North Carolina v. Carr, 386 F.2d 129 (4th Cir. 1967). The purpose of 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a) (1) is to ensure that federal officers or agents shall not be forced to answer for conduct assertedly within their duty in any court except a federal court. The Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation and other federal officers, agents and employees affected by the second ordering paragraph of Judge Alexander’s Order of November 10, 1970, may remove the proceeding against themselves to the District Court. Removal of this aspect of the litigation has occurred on proper petition and this aspect of the proceedings stands removed.

[1398]*1398There shall be no further proceedings in the matter which has been removed without further order of this Court and counsel are requested to appear for a status conference on December 15, 1970, at 9:30 a. m.

So ordered.

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

MEMORANDUM OPINION

GESELL, District Judge.

Defendant’s petition to remand this cause to the Court of General Sessions is denied.

The Court of General Sessions is not a federal court within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 451. Tate v. United States, 123 U.S.App.D.C. 261, 359 F.2d 245, 251 (1966). It is the counterpart of a state court and has, by Act of Congress, limited jurisdiction. Ridgley v. United States, D.C.Mun.App., 45 A.2d 475 (1945).

Numerous decisions in this jurisdiction have recognized the rule that generally prevails throughout the federal system that in cases involving federal officers, where defenses are available arising from their federal duties, the right of removal to the federal court is absolute. See, e. g., Brown v. Weschler, 135 F.Supp. 622, 624 (D.D.C.1955); Lemley v. Mitchell, 304 F.Supp. 1271 (D.D.C.1969). This broad doctrine has no exceptions and is a recognition of federal supremacy. Willingham v. Morgan, 395 U.S. 402, 89 S.Ct. 1813, 23 L.Ed.2d 396 (1969). It makes no difference whether the action sought to be removed is criminal, civil, ancillary or sui generis. North Carolina v. Carr, 386 F.2d 129 (4th Cir. 1967). The purpose of 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a) (1) is to ensure that federal officers or agents shall not be forced to answer for conduct assertedly within their duty in any court except a federal court. The Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation and other federal officers, agents and employees affected by the second ordering paragraph of Judge Alexander’s Order of November 10, 1970, may remove the proceeding against themselves to the District Court. Removal of this aspect of the litigation has occurred on proper petition and this aspect of the proceedings stands removed.

[1398]*1398There shall be no further proceedings in the matter which has been removed without further order of this Court and counsel are requested to appear for a status conference on December 15, 1970, at 9:30 a. m.

So ordered.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

320 F. Supp. 1396, 1970 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9235, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-penney-cadc-1970.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack