HEWITT
v.
CITY OF JACKSONVILLE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
A municipality is not a 'person' under 8 U.S.C.A. § 43, and being shot by a prison superintendent does not constitute a deprivation of civil rights.
Plaintiff, a prisoner, alleged he was unlawfully shot by the Superintendent of Prison Farms acting under color of law. The amended complaint sought da…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Deprivation Of Civil Rights cases and more on FLexlaw
HOLMES, Circuit Judge.
This appeal is from the dismissal of an original complaint alleging a violation of appellant’s civil rights, and from the refusal of the lower court to allow the filing of an amended complaint on the ground that the amended complaint failed to state a cause of action upon which relief could be granted. The amended complaint founded jurisdiction on 8 U.S.C.A. § 43, which affords redress to the injured party for violations of his civil rights. In substance, the amended complaint alleged that the City of Jacksonville, acting through the Superintendent of its Prison Farms, and under col-or of law, regulations, .ordinances, and customs of the City, and while the plaintiff was a prisoner confined at its Prison Farms, “did unlawfully and wilfully shoot off and discharge a pistol against, into, and upon the plaintiff,” and that such act constituted a deprivation of the plaintiff’s civil rights, for which an action is authorized Under 8 U.S.C.A. § 43. The Superintendent of the Prison Farms is not made a party to this suit.' The appellant stakes his entire case on his claim against the City of Jacksonville.
The lower court, in refusing to allow the amended complaint to be filed, held that the word “persons” used in the Civil Rights statute, 8 U.S.C.A. § 43, does not include a State or its governmental subdivisions acting in their sovereign, as distinguished from their proprietary, capacity. It further held that the appellant’s assertion that he was shot by the Superintendent of the Prison Farms did not constitute a sufficient allegation of fact to charge a deprivation of civil rights within the meaning of the statute.
We are in accord with the views expressed by the lower court; and, on the authority of Charlton v. City of Hialeah, 188 F. 2d 421, this day decided by this court, the judgment appealed from is affirmed.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Monroe v. Pape, 365 U.S. 167 (U.S. 1961)
-
Harkless v. The Sweeny Indep. Sch. Dist., 427 F.2d 319 (5th Cir. 1970)
-
Agnew v. City OF Compton, 239 F.2d 226 (9th Cir. 1956)
Previewing 3 of 9 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Charlton v. City OF Hialeah, 188 F.2d 421 (5th Cir. 1951)