FRANK BURNS, JOSEPH GIZOWSKY, MAC KRIEGER, ROBERT MCCRUDEN, JOSEPH SCRABONIA, HENRY D. STRUBE AND JOHN M. TOMCHEK, PLAINTIFFS-APPELLEES,
v.
ARTHUR A. MCCRARY, COL., COMMANDING OFFICER, SIGNAL CORPS PICTORIAL CENTER, 35-11 35TH AVENUE, LONG ISLAND CITY, NEW YORK, WILLIAM E. LEARY, MAJOR, SIGNAL CORPS PICTORIAL CENTER, 35-11 35TH AVENUE, LONG ISLAND CITY, NEW YORK, AND MARY C. O'CONNOR, CHIEF PERSONNEL OFFICER, SIGNAL CORPS PICTORIAL CENTER, 35-11 35TH AVENUE, LONG ISLAND CITY, NEW YORK, DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS
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.
The court held that the district court lacked jurisdiction to grant an injunction because plaintiffs had not exhausted their administrative remedies.
Civilian employees of the Army Signal Corps, some veterans, received notice of grade reduction and filed administrative appeals. While appeals were pe…
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 Preliminary Injunction cases and more on FLexlaw
FRANK, Circuit Judge.
Plaintiffs are civilians employed by the United States as Photographer Equipment Repairers at the Army Signal Corps Pictorial Center, in Long Island City, New York. Some of plaintiffs are veterans. On February 2, 1955, each of them received official notice that he would be reduced in grade on February 20,1955. Before that date, each of plaintiffs filed an administrative appeal. The appeals of those who were veterans will be finally decided by the Civil Service Commission, Washington, D. C., and the appeals of those who were not veterans by the Secretary of the Army, Washington, D. C. While these appeals were pending and undecided, plaintiffs began this suit. They asked that the proposed reductions in grade be declared void and that the defendants be enjoined from carrying them out. On plaintiffs’ motion, the district court granted a preliminary injunction. Defendants have appealed.
When this suit began and when the preliminary injunction issued, plaintiffs had not exhausted their administrative remedies. Such exhaustion is essential to the maintenance of such a suit.1 The final administrative decisions will be made by officials residing in Washington, D. C., who have not been served. Accordingly, the district court had no jurisdiction to grant either a temporary or a final injunction.2
Reversed and remanded with directions to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.
. Aircraft & Diesel Equipment Corp. v. Hirsch, 331 U.S. 752, 764, 67 S.Ct. 1493, 91 L.Ed. 1796; Macauley v. Waterman S.S. Corp., 327 U.S. 540, 66 S.Ct. 712, 90 L.Ed. 839; Myers v. Bethlehem Shipbuilding Co., 303 U.S. 41, 58 S.Ct. 459, 82 L.Ed. 638. Wettre v. Hague, 1 Cir., 168 E.2d 825 as interpreted in Fitzpatrick v. Snyder, 1 Cir., 220 F. 2d 522, 525, holds that, where there is a “clear violation of some incontestable right,” administrative remedies need not be first exhausted. As here there is no “clear violation of some incontestable right,” we need not here decide whether or not to follow the Wettre doctrine; Cf. Young v. Higley, 95 U.S.App.D.C. 122, 220 F. 2d 487.
. Blackmar v. Guerre, 342 U.S. 512, 72 S.Ct. 410, 96 L.Ed. 534; Reeber v. Rossell, 2 Cir., 200 F. 2d 334; Cf. United States ex rel. Vassel v. Durning, 2 Cir., 152 F. 2d 455.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Lodge 1858 v. Paine, 436 F.2d 882 (D.C. Cir. 1970)
-
Am. Fed'n OF Gov't Emps. (AFL-CIO) v. Resor, 442 F.2d 993 (3d Cir. 1971)
-
Michaelson v. Lt. General Thomas W. Herren, 242 F.2d 693 (2d Cir. 1957)
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Myers v. Bethlehem Shipbuilding Corp., 303 U.S. 41 (U.S. 1938)
- Aircraft & Diesel Equip. Corp. v. Hirsch, 331 U.S. 752 (U.S. 1947)
- Blackmar v. Guerre, 342 U.S. 512 (U.S. 1952)
- MacAuley v. Waterman S.S. Corp., 327 U.S. 540 (U.S. 1946)
- Young v. Higley, 220 F.2d 487 (D.C. Cir. 1955)
- United States ex rel. Vassel v. Durning, 152 F.2d 455 (2d Cir. 1945)
- Fitzpatrick v. Snyder, 220 F.2d 522 (1st Cir. 1955)
- Reeber v. Rossell, 200 F.2d 334 (2d Cir. 1952)
- Augustus v. Republic Steel Corp., 200 F.2d 334 (5th Cir. 1952)