DONALD WHEELDIN AND ADMIRAL DAWSON, APPELLANTS,
v.
WILLIAM WHEELER, ROBERT W. WARE, EUGENE W. BISCAILUZ, FIDELITY AND DEPOSIT COMPANY OF MARYLAND, A CORPORATION, AND LUMBERMEN'S MUTUAL CASUALTY CO., A CORPORATION, APPELLEES
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 affirmed the dismissal of the claim for injunctive relief as moot and the denial of declaratory judgment, but reversed the dismissal of the claim for damages against the House investigator.
Plaintiffs were subpoenaed to appear before a House committee and sued the investigator, marshal, and sheriff for injunctive relief, declaratory judgm…
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 Bell V. Hood cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellants (plaintiffs below) were subpoenaed to appear before a committee of the United States House of Representatives proposing to conduct a hearing in Los Angeles. Thereupon, as plaintiffs they filed a complaint against William Wheeler (a committee investigator) and against Robert W. Ware (the United States marshal) and Eugene Biscailuz (sheriff of Los Angeles County, California) together with the sureties of the last two named. The sheriff and marshal, through their deputies, had served the subpoenas.
The complaint sought injunctive relief, a declaratory judgment as to validity of the subpoenas and money damages.
The claim for injunctive relief is now moot. The claim for a declaratory judgment was rejected upon the exercise of the judicial discretion permitted the trial court under the statute, 28 U.S.C. § 2201. The claim for money damages was dismissed as to all defendants on the ground of lack of jurisdiction of the subject matter. Diversity of citizenship was not asserted.
The appeal from the judgment insofar as the request for injunctive relief is concerned is dismissed for the reason that the subject matter is now moot. As to the claim for declaratory relief, the judgment is affirmed for the reason that entertainment of the claim therefor was discretionary with the district court.
The appeal on the claim for money damages under the alleged facts as against the marshal and the sheriff (and their sureties) is such an unjustified harassment of these two officers that we hold the claim and the appeal thereon is so legally frivolous that the appeal as to them must be and is dismissed.1
As to House Investigator Wheeler, in the sense of Bell v. Hood, 327 U.S. 678, 66 S.Ct. 773, 90 L.Ed. 939,2 we believe there was jurisdiction to entertain the claim for money damages.
At the proper time the district court can determine whether a claim was stated.
Affirmed, dismissed and reversed as indicated above.
. See John v. Gibson, 9 Cir., 1959, 270 F. 2d 36; and Jimenez v. Barber, 9 Cir., 1958, 252 F. 2d 550.
. Cf. Lowe v. Manhattan Beach City School District, 9 Cir., 222 F. 2d 258; Hicks v. City of Los Angeles, 9 Cir., 240 F. 2d 495; Agnew v. City of Compton, 9 Cir., 239 F. 2d 226.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Wheeldin v. Wheeler, 373 U.S. 647 (U.S. 1963)
-
DRY Creek Lodge, Inc. v. The United States, 515 F.2d 926 (10th Cir. 1975)
-
Wheeldin v. Wheeler, 302 F.2d 36 (9th Cir. 1962)
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Bell v. Hood, 327 U.S. 678 (U.S. 1946)
- Agnew v. City OF Compton, 239 F.2d 226 (9th Cir. 1956)
- Jimenez v. Barber, 252 F.2d 550 (9th Cir. 1958)
- Lowe v. Manhattan Beach City Sch. Dist. OF LOS Angeles Cnty., 222 F.2d 258 (9th Cir. 1955)
- Albers Milling Co. v. United States, 270 F.2d 36 (9th Cir. 1959)
- John v. Hon. Phil S. Gibson, 270 F.2d 36 (9th Cir. 1959)
- Hicks v. City OF LOS Angeles, 240 F.2d 495 (9th Cir. 1957)