ROBERT W. HICKS, APPELLANT,
v.
ARTHUR E. SUMMERFIELD, POSTMASTER GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES, AND PHILIP-YOUNG, ET AL., UNITED STATES CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, APPELLEES

D.C. Cir. | 1958-11-13
No. 14483
261 F.2d 752 United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia (1958)

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.


Holding

The court held that the Civil Service Commissioners were indispensable parties, and the suit was properly dismissed due to the failure to substitute their successors.


Facts & Procedural History

Appellant sued the Postmaster General and Civil Service Commissioners seeking reinstatement to his postal employment after dismissal. During the suit,…

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.


Opinion of the Court
BASTIAN, Circuit Judge.

BASTIAN, Circuit Judge.

Appellant (plaintiff) appeals from an order of the District Court dismissing his suit against the Postmaster General and the Civil Service Commissioners. Appellant asked that the court issue a preliminary and permanent mandatory injunction requiring appellees (defendants) to restore appellant to his employment in the United States Post Office Department, retroactive to the date of his dismissal. Appellant was dismissed by a Notification of Personnel Action emanating from the Post Office Department, the grounds stated therein being:

“For false and misleading statements in your civil service papers concerning separations from previous employments and experience, and other evidence of unsuitability for Government employment.”

It is conceded that the Civil Service Commission directed the removal action complained of.

While the suit was pending in the District Court, two of the defendant Civil Service Commissioners resigned from the Commission and their successors were not substituted as parties defendant within six months after taking oath of office, as required by Fed.R.Civ.P. 25(d), 28 U.S.C.A.1 On motion, based on the failure to substitute indispensable parties, the District Court dismissed the complaint but without prejudice. Appellant contends that the complaint should not have been dismissed because the members of the Civil Service Commission were not in fact indispensable parties.

We believe that under the circumstances of this case the Civil Service Commissioners were indispensable parties to the suit and, they not being be fore the court, the action was properly-dismissed. Cf. Blackmar v. Guerre, 1952, 342 U.S. 512, 72 S.Ct. 410, 96 L.Ed. 534; Benenati v. Young, 1955, 95 U.S.App.D.C. 120, 220 F. 2d 383.

Affirmed.

. “When an officer of the United States, or of the District of Columbia, the Canal Zone, a territory, an insular possession, a state, county, city, or other governmental agency, is a party to an action and during its pendency dies, resigns, or otherwise ceases to hold office, the action may be continued and maintained by or against his successor, if within 6 months after the successor takes office it is satisfactorily shown to the court that there is a substantial need for so continuing and maintaining it. * * * ”

Fed.R.Civ.P. 6(b) provides that the court may not extend the time for taking action under Rule 25(d).


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw