ERNEST ALLEN, APPELLANT,
v.
GERALD W. GROAT, ALFRED PARE, JACK O'KELLY, JAMES FAYTECK, 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 held that the district court properly dismissed the complaint.
Appellant sued a judge and police officers for alleged deprivation of constitutional rights stemming from an arrest and conviction for carrying a conc…
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 Constitutional Rights cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant, Ernest Allen, brought this action in the District Court under the provisions of Sec. 1343, Title 28, and Sec. 1983, Title 42 U.S.C.A. seeking damages in the amount of $150,000.00 for alleged deprivation of his constitutional rights. Named as defendants are appel-lees, Judge Gerald W. Groat, a judge of the Recorder’s Court of the city of Detroit, and Alfred Pare, Jack O’Kelly and James Fayteck, police officers of the city of Detroit.
Appellant claims that on or about July 31, 1958, he was illegally and unreasonably stopped and searched by appellees O’Kelly and Fayteck, and placed under arrest when a revolver was found upon and taken from his person; that appel-lee Pare signed a complaint against him although he had no firsthand knowledge of the illegal search and arrest, and that Judge Groat, before whom he was tried, after waiving a trial by jury, and found guilty of unlawfully carrying a concealed weapon upon his person, had refused to protect his rights as a United States citizen in his court and had refused to recognize the mandates of higher authorities. Appellant was sentenced to serve three to five years imprisonment, which sentence has never been vacated.
The District Judge sustained motions of the appellees to dismiss the complaint. This appeal followed.
The Court being of the opinion that the order dismissing the complaint was properly entered; Bradley v. Fisher, 13 Wall. 335, 20 L.Ed. 646; Kenney v. Fox, 6 Cir., 232 F. 2d 288, certiorari denied Ken-ney v. Killian, 352 U.S. 855, 77 S.Ct. 84, 1 L.Ed.2d 66; Kenney v. Hatfield, 352 U.S. 856, 77 S.Ct. 84, 1 L.Ed.2d 66; Thompson v. Heither, 6 Cir., 235 F. 2d 176, appeal dismissed 352 U.S. 921, 77 S. Ct. 232, 1 L.Ed.2d 158; Cuiksa v. City of Mansfield, 6 Cir., 250 F. 2d 700, certiorari denied 356 U.S. 937, 78 S.Ct. 779, 2 L.Ed. 2d 813; Agnew v. City of Compton, 9 Cir., 239 F. 2d 226, 230-231, certiorari denied 353 U.S. 959, 77 S.Ct. 868, 1 L.Ed. 2d 910.
It is ordered that the judgment be affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Saier v. State BAR OF Mich. & The Supreme Court of The State of Mich., 293 F.2d 756 (6th Cir. 1961)
Authorities Cited (15 total)
- Bradley v. Fisher, 13 Wall. 335 (U.S. 1871)
- Pargoud v. United States, 13 Wall. 156 (U.S. 1871)
- Kenney v. Honorable Raymond W. FOX, 232 F.2d 288 (6th Cir. 1956)
- Agnew v. City OF Compton, 239 F.2d 226 (9th Cir. 1956)
- Cuiksa v. The City OF Mansfield, 250 F.2d 700 (6th Cir. 1957)
- Stapleton v. Teets, 352 U.S. 855 (U.S. 1956)
- Spears v. Shell Oil Co., 352 U.S. 855 (U.S. 1956)
- Thompson v. Heither, 352 U.S. 921 (U.S. 1956)
- Bloch v. United States, 353 U.S. 959 (U.S. 1957)
- Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen v. Smith, 356 U.S. 937 (U.S. 1958)