MARGARET SOPP, APPELLANT,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
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 Federal Tort Claims Act's exceptions preclude claims arising from false arrest, even if negligence is alleged.
Plaintiff sued the United States under the FTCA, alleging harm resulted from her arrest on an ill-founded charge of sending obscene communications. Th…
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 Federal Tort Claims Act cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM:
In this action under the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1346(b), the plaintiff has appealed from an order granting a motion of the United States for summary judgment.
From the complaint and an uncontroverted affidavit filed in support of the motion for summary judgment, it clearly appears that all of the harm of which the plaintiff has complained resulted from her arrest on an ill-founded charge that she was the writer of certain obscene communications soliciting the commission of sodomy. It also appears that the obscene communications had been sent through the mail and were investigated by a United States postal inspector in the course of his duties. This inspector also obtained specimens of the plaintiff’s handwriting and subsequently surrendered them together with the obscene matter to local authorities who, in turn, had the plaintiff arrested and prosecuted for the solicitation of sodomy in violation of state law. It was later determined that a person other than the plaintiff was the wrongdoer. In authorizing suits against the United States for injury caused by the negligent or wrongful conduct of government employees acting within the scope of their duties, Congress has expressly precluded suits against the government on any “claim arising out of * * * false imprisonment, false arrest, malicious prosecution, abuse of process, libel, slander, misrepresentation, deceit * * 28 U.S.C. § 2680(h). The district court concluded that this was such an action. We agree. Cf. Blitz v. Boog, 2d Cir., 1964, 328 F. 2d 596; Tinkoff v. United States, 7th Cir., 1954, 211 F. 2d 890.
The judgment will be affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Blitz v. Boog, 328 F.2d 596 (2d Cir. 1964)
- Tinkoff v. United States, 211 F.2d 890 (7th Cir. 1954)