Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

BIVENS v. 6 UNKNOWN NAMED AGENTS OF THE FED. BUR.

November 24, 1967

Webster BIVENS, Plaintiff,
v.
6 UNKNOWN NAMED AGENTS OF the FEDERAL BUREAU OF NARCOTICS, Defendants



The opinion of the court was delivered by: BRUCHHAUSEN

MEMORANDUM and ORDER

 BRUCHHAUSEN, District Judge.

 The plaintiff moves for leave to appeal in forma pauperis from the order of this Court, dated October 9, 1967, dismissing the complaint for want of jurisdiction.

 The said order was incorporated in the Court's memorandum of that date. Since that date, the Court has conducted further research and consideration of the cases, bearing upon the issue of law herein.

 THE PLAINTIFF'S CLAIM OF JURISDICTION

 In his complaint, the plaintiff alleges:

 
"1. This Court has jurisdiction to entertain this complaint under the Civil Rights Act of 1871, Title 42 U.S.C., Section 1983, and Title 28 U.S.C., Sections 1331(a) and 1343(3) and (4).
 
"2. While acting under the colors and authority of the United States of America, six (6) Agents of the U.S. Narcotic Bureau, did violate plaintiff's constitutional rights, the facts are as follows. * * *"

 In substance, the plaintiff alleges in his complaint that the defendants arrested him and instituted a search and seizure, without possessing warrants. He demands damages from each defendant in the sum of $15,000.

 THIS COURT HAS NO JURISDICTION OF THE PLAINTIFF'S ACTION UNDER 28 U.S.C. § 1343

 In Hatfield v. Bailleaux, 9 Cir., 290 F.2d 632, certiorari denied in 368 U.S. 862, 82 S. Ct. 105, 7 L. Ed. 2d 59 the Court said:

 
"It will be noted that under this provision [28 U.S.C. 1343] a district court has jurisdiction only to the extent that civil actions to redress the rights referred to therein have been 'authorized by law.' It is therefore necessary to look elsewhere to ascertain what civil actions for the redress of these rights have been authorized by law."

 THIS COURT HAS NO JURISDICTION OF THE PLAINTIFF'S ACTION UNDER 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (FORMERLY 42 U.S.C. § 43)

 As stated, the plaintiff alleged in his compaint that the defendants acted under the color of authority of the United States.

 42 U.S.C. § 1983 confers jurisdiction upon the Federal Courts of suits against persons charged with depriving claimants of Constitutional rights while acting "under color of any statute, ordinance, ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.