rafferty v. pgc 423 f.supp. 1045

8/9/2019 Rafferty v. PGC 423 F.supp. 1045

1/21

United States District Court, D. Maryland.Margie Lemon RAFFETY and Robert Raymond

Raffety, Plaintiffs,v.

PRINCE GEORGE'S COUNTY et al., Defendants.Civ. A. No. M-75-768.

Nov. 1, 1976.

Plaintiffs, a white husband and black wife, whosethree children had been killed in fire which des-troyed the family's home, brought action against

county and certain members of police and fire de-partments to recover for denial of civil rights as aresult of alleged maliciously and racially motivatedinvestigation of the fire. On motions to dismiss, theDistrict Court, James R. Miller, Jr., J., held thatcomplaint stated cause of action against the policeofficers who conducted the investigation and theirsuperiors who allegedly had adopted policies de-signed to deny equal protection to blacks and per-sons who associate with them; that the qualified im-munity enjoyed by the superior officers could notsupport motion to dismiss; the court would exercisependent jurisdiction over state law claims based ondefamation, invasion of privacy, false imprison-ment, and intentional infliction of willful distrust;that the complaint set forth cause of action for mon-etary and equitable relief against county under civilrights statute guaranteeing all persons the sameright to full and equal benefit of all laws and pro-ceedings for the security of persons and property asis enjoyed by white citizens; that the 14th amend-ment does not create a cause of action for damages;and that the jurisdictional amount was present.

Order accordingly.

West Headnotes

[1] Civil Rights 78 1396

78 Civil Rights

78II I Federal Remedies in General78k13 92 Plead ing

78k1396 k. Color of State Law; State Ac-tion. Most Cited Case s

(Formerly 78k236, 78k13.12(8))Allegations that husband and wife were subjectedto unwarranted detention, interrogation, and sub-sequent investigation by officers who were raciallymotivated and who did not have probable causewere sufficient to state a claim under civil rightsstatute dealing with deprivation of rights under col-or of law; complaint did not merely seek damagesfor failure of police officers to give Miranda warn-

ings. 42 U.S.C.A. 1983 .

[2] Federal Courts 170B 15

170B Federal Courts170B I Jurisdiction and Powers in General

170BI (A) In General170Bk14 Jurisdiction of Entire Contro-

versy; Pendent Jurisdiction170Bk15 k. Federal Q uestion Cases in

General, Claims Pendent To. Most Cited Case s(Formerly 106k263(5))

Federal court which had jurisdiction over claimsagainst police officers and fire department investig-ators and their superiors under civil rights statutewould exercise pendent jurisdiction over stateclaims based on defamation, negligence, assault,false imprisonment, invasion of privacy, and inflic-tion of willful distress. 28 U.S.C.A. 1331; 42U.S.C.A. 1983 .

[3] Federal Civil Procedure 170A 633.1

170A Federal Civil Procedure

170AVI I Pleadings and Motions170A VII(A) Pleadi ngs in General170Ak633 Certainty, Definiteness and

Particularity170Ak633.1 k. In General. Most Cited

Cases(Formerly 170Ak633)

Page 1423 F.Supp. 1045(Cite as: 423 F.Supp. 1045)

2010 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.
http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=78http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=78IIIhttp://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=78k1392http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=78k1392http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=78k1396http://www.westlaw.com/Digest/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=MCC&DocName=78k1396http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=42USCAS1983&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=170Bhttp://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=170BIhttp://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=170BI%28A%29http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=170BI%28A%29http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=170Bk14http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=170Bk15http://www.westlaw.com/Digest/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=MCC&DocName=170Bk15http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=28USCAS1331&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=42USCAS1983&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=42USCAS1983&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=170Ahttp://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=170AVIIhttp://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=170AVII%28A%29http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=170AVII%28A%29http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=170Ak633http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=170Ak633.1http://www.westlaw.com/Digest/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=MCC&DocName=170Ak633.1http://www.westlaw.com/Digest/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=MCC&DocName=170Ak633.1http://www.westlaw.com/Digest/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=MCC&DocName=170Ak633.1http://www.westlaw.com/Digest/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=MCC&DocName=170Ak633.1http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=170Ak633.1http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=170Ak633http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=170AVII%28A%29http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=170AVIIhttp://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=170Ahttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=42USCAS1983&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=42USCAS1983&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=28USCAS1331&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Digest/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=MCC&DocName=170Bk15http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=170Bk15http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=170Bk14http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=170BI%28A%29http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=170BIhttp://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=170Bhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=42USCAS1983&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Digest/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=MCC&DocName=78k1396http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=78k1396http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=78k1392http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=78IIIhttp://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=78


2/21

Complaint which alleged that police officers de-tained wife against her will for a period of 14 hoursduring which they repeatedly accused her of mur-dering her own children, made her believe that shewould suffer bodily harm, harassed and intimidatedher, and made her suffer extreme emotional distressand which alleged that husband was thereafter de-tained against his will for a period in excess of tenhours during which he was subjected to treatmentsimilar to that inflicted upon the wife and that theactions of the police officers were racially motiv-ated was sufficiently specific.


78 Civil Rights78II I Federal Remedies in General

78k13 53 Liabil ity of Public Officials78k135 4 k. In General. Most Cited Cases

(Formerly 78k207(1), 78k13.8(1))Cause of action cannot be brought for damagesagainst government officials or employees acting intheir official capacities under civil rights statutedealing with deprivation of rights under color of law. 42 U.S.C.A. 1983 .



78k13 53 Liabil ity of Public Officials78k135 4 k. In General. Most Cited Cases

(Formerly 78k207(1), 78k13.7)Cause of action for damages under civil rights stat-ute granting all persons the same right to full andequal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the se-curity of persons and property as is enjoyed bywhite citizens can be maintained against govern-ment officials and employees acting in their official

capacity. 42 U.S.C.A. 1981 .

[6] Civil Rights 78 1376(4)


78k13 72 Privil ege or Immunity; Good Faith

and Probable Cause78k1376 Government Agencies and Of-

ficers78k1376(4) k. Municipa lities and

Counties and Their Officers. Most Cited Cases(Formerly 78k214(4), 78k13.8(3))

Federal Civil Procedure 170A 1752.1

170A Federal Civil Procedure170AX I Dismissal

170A XI(B) Involu ntary Dismissal170AXI(B)2 Grounds in General

170Ak1752 Affirmative Defenses,Raising by Motion to Dismiss

170Ak1752.1 k. In General. MostCited Case s

(Formerly 170Ak1752)Any immunity which might extend to superior of-ficers of certain policemen and firemen who wereallegedly engaged in a maliciously and racially mo-tivated investigation would be qualified and subjectto proof of the superiors, that they acted upon reas-onable grounds and in good faith; the defense couldnot support motion to dismiss.



78k13 34 Perso ns Liable in General78k1336 k. Vicarious or Respondeat Su-

perior Liability in General. Most Cited Case s(Formerly 78k205(1), 78k13.7)

Doctrine of respondeat superior is not applicable toactions under civil rights statutes dealing withdeprivation of rights under color of law and grant-ing all persons full and equal benefit of all laws andproceedings for the security of persons and prop-

erty. 42 U.S.C.A. 1981 , 1983 .



78k13 92 Plead ing


http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=78http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=78IIIhttp://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=78k1353http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=78k1353http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=78k1354http://www.westlaw.com/Digest/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=MCC&DocName=78k1354http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=42USCAS1983&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=78http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=78IIIhttp://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=78k1353http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=78k1353http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=78k1354http://www.westlaw.com/Digest/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=MCC&DocName=78k1354http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=42USCAS1981&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=78http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=78IIIhttp://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=78k1372http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=78k1372http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=78k1376http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=78k1376%284%29http://www.westlaw.com/Digest/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=MCC&DocName=78k1376%284%29http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=170Ahttp://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=170AXIhttp://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=170AXI%28B%29http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=170AXI%28B%29http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=170AXI%28B%292http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=170Ak1752http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=170Ak1752.1http://www.westlaw.com/Digest/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=MCC&DocName=170Ak1752.1http://www.westlaw.com/Digest/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=MCC&DocName=170Ak1752.1http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=78http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=78IIIhttp://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=78k1334http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=78k1334http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=78k1336http://www.westlaw.com/Digest/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=MCC&DocName=78k1336http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=42USCAS1981&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=42USCAS1983&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=78http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=78IIIhttp://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=78k1392http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=78k1392http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=78k1392http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=78IIIhttp://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=78http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=42USCAS1983&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=42USCAS1981&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Digest/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=MCC&DocName=78k1336http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=78k1336http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=78k1334http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=78IIIhttp://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=78http://www.westlaw.com/Digest/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=MCC&DocName=170Ak1752.1http://www.westlaw.com/Digest/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=MCC&DocName=170Ak1752.1http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=170Ak1752.1http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=170Ak1752http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=170AXI%28B%292http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=170AXI%28B%29http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=170AXIhttp://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=170Ahttp://www.westlaw.com/Digest/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=MCC&DocName=78k1376%284%29http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=78k1376%284%29http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=78k1376http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=78k1372http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=78IIIhttp://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=78http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=42USCAS1981&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Digest/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=MCC&DocName=78k1354http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=78k1354http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=78k1353http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=78IIIhttp://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=78http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=42USCAS1983&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Digest/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=MCC&DocName=78k1354http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=78k1354http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=78k1353http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=78IIIhttp://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=78


3/21

78k139 5 Particular Causes of Action78k1395(4) Criminal La w Enforce-

ment; Police and Prosecutors78k1395(5 ) k. In General. Most

Cited Case s(Formerly 78k235(5.1), 78k235(5),

78k13.12(4))Allegations that defendants, superior officers incounty police and fire department, advised countypolice, without justification, that fire was caused byarson and that defendants established policies,guidelines, and patterns of conduct designed todeny members of the black race equal protection of law with the result that certain police and fire de-partment investigators maliciously harassed owners

of house which burned stated claim under civilrights statute guaranteeing to all persons the fulland equal benefit of all laws and proceedings forthe security of persons and property as is enjoyedby white citizens. 42 U.S.C.A. 1981 .



78k13 28 Perso ns Protected and Entitled toSue

78k1331 Persons Aggrieved, and Standingin General

78k1331(4) k. Criminal Law Enforce-ment; Prisons. Most Cited Cases

(Formerly 78k201, 78k13.11)Plaintiffs who alleged that policies, guidelines, andpatterns of conduct established by officers and po-lice and fire department caused plaintiffs to be de-tained, interrogated, and investigated because of race alleged a direct, nonabstract injury which wasunique from that sustained by all members of thepublic as result of adoption of the policies andplaintiffs thus had standing to assert civil rightsclaims based on the adoption and enforcement of those policies. 42 U.S.C.A. 1981 .


78 Civil Rights

78II I Federal Remedies in General78k13 42 Liabil ity of Municipalities and Oth-

er Governmental Bodies78k134 3 k. In General. Most Cited Cases

(Formerly 78k206(1), 78k13.7)County is not a person within meaning of civilrights statute. 42 U.S.C.A. 1983 .

[11] Civil Rights 78 1395(1)


78k13 92 Plead ing78k139 5 Particular Causes of Action

78k1395(1) k. In Genera l. Most CitedCases

(Formerly 78k235(1), 78k13.12(7))Persons who alleged that they were the target of amalicious campaign conducted by certain countyofficers and who sought, in addition to damages,such other and further relief as may be just andproper stated claim under the Fourteenth Amend-ment against county for injunction against continu-ing investigation. 28 U.S.C.A. 1331;U.S.C.A.Const. Amend. 14 .


170B Federal Courts170BII I Federal Question Jurisdiction

170BI II(B) Cases Arising Under the Consti-tution

170Bk177 k. Due Process and Equal Pro-tection in General. Most Cited Case s

(Formerly 106k282.2(1))Federal court does not have power to grant monet-ary damages as relief in actions brought under theFourteenth Amendment. U.S.C.A.Const. Amend .14.


170B Federal Courts170BIV Citizenship, Residence or Character of

Parties, Jurisdiction Dependent on170BI V(A) In General


http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=78k1395http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=78k1395%284%29http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=78k1395%285%29http://www.westlaw.com/Digest/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=MCC&DocName=78k1395%285%29http://www.westlaw.com/Digest/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=MCC&DocName=78k1395%285%29http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=42USCAS1981&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=78http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=78IIIhttp://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=78k1328http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=78k1328http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=78k1331http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=78k1331%284%29http://www.westlaw.com/Digest/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=MCC&DocName=78k1331%284%29http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=42USCAS1981&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=78http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=78IIIhttp://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=78k1342http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=78k1342http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=78k1343http://www.westlaw.com/Digest/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=MCC&DocName=78k1343http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=42USCAS1983&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=78http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=78IIIhttp://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=78k1392http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=78k1392http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=78k1395http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=78k1395%281%29http://www.westlaw.com/Digest/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=MCC&DocName=78k1395%281%29http://www.westlaw.com/Digest/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=MCC&DocName=78k1395%281%29http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=28USCAS1331&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=USCOAMENDXIV&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=170Bhttp://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=170BIIIhttp://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=170BIII%28B%29http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=170BIII%28B%29http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=170Bk177http://www.westlaw.com/Digest/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=MCC&DocName=170Bk177http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=USCOAMENDXIV&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=USCOAMENDXIV&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=170Bhttp://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=170BIVhttp://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=170BIV%28A%29http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=170BIV%28A%29http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=170BIV%28A%29http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=170BIVhttp://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=170Bhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=USCOAMENDXIV&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=USCOAMENDXIV&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Digest/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=MCC&DocName=170Bk177http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=170Bk177http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=170BIII%28B%29http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=170BIIIhttp://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=170Bhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=USCOAMENDXIV&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=28USCAS1331&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Digest/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=MCC&DocName=78k1395%281%29http://www.westlaw.com/Digest/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=MCC&DocName=78k1395%281%29http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=78k1395%281%29http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=78k1395http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=78k1392http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=78IIIhttp://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=78http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=42USCAS1983&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Digest/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=MCC&DocName=78k1343http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=78k1343http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=78k1342http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=78IIIhttp://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=78http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=42USCAS1981&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Digest/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=MCC&DocName=78k1331%284%29http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=78k1331%284%29http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=78k1331http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=78k1328http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=78IIIhttp://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=78http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=42USCAS1981&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Digest/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=MCC&DocName=78k1395%285%29http://www.westlaw.com/Digest/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=MCC&DocName=78k1395%285%29http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=78k1395%285%29http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=78k1395%284%29http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=78k1395


4/21

170Bk268 What Are Suits Against States170Bk270 k. Cities or Other Political

Subdivisions, Actions Involving. Most Cited Cases(Formerly 106k303(3))

Eleventh Amendment bar to suits against a statedoes not extend to counties and municipalities andthe agencies thereof. U.S.C.A.Const. Amend. 11 .



78k14 48 k. Judgment and Relief in General.Most Cited Cases

(Formerly 78k261, 78k13.16)Statute guaranteeing to all persons the full andequal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the se-curity of persons and property as is enjoyed bywhite persons will support equitable relief. 42U.S.C.A. 1983 .

[15] Civil Rights 78 1395(5)


78k13 92 Plead ing78k139 5 Particular Causes of Action

78k1395(4) Criminal La w Enforce-ment; Police and Prosecutors

78k1395(5 ) k. In General. MostCited Case s

(Formerly 78k235(5.1), 78k235(5),78k13.12(4))Plaintiffs who alleged that they had been the targetof maliciously and racially motivated investigationby county police and fire department investigatorsand that the supervisors of the investigators had ad-opted policies and guidelines designed to denymembers of the black race, and persons who associ-

ated with them, equal protection of the law statedcause of action for damages against county undercivil rights statute guaranteeing all persons thesame right to full and equal benefit of all laws andproceedings for the security of persons and propertyas is enjoyed by white citizens. 42 U.S.C.A. 1981 .


170B Federal Courts170B I Jurisdiction and Powers in General

170BI (A) In General170Bk14 Jurisdiction of Entire Contro-

versy; Pendent Jurisdiction170Bk15 k. Federal Q uestion Cases in

General, Claims Pendent To. Most Cited Case s(Formerly 106k263(5))

Federal court which had jurisdiction over civilrights complaint against county would exercisependent jurisdiction over causes of action understate law against the county which were maintain-able against the county because of its waiver of

sovereign immunity. 28 U.S.C.A. 1343(4 ).

[17] Federal Courts 170B 340.1

170B Federal Courts170BV Amount or Value in Controversy Affect-

ing Jurisdiction170Bk 340 Partic ular Cases, Claim or Value

170Bk340.1 k. In General. Most CitedCases

(Formerly 170Bk340, 106k328.2(2))It was not shown that the $250,000 in damages

which plaintiffs sought to recover from county andcertain of its fire and police department personnelas a result of alleged harassment and racially andmaliciously motivated investigation of plaintiffswas sought in bad faith, nor did it appear to a legalcertainty that the claim was really for less than thatamount, so that jurisdictional amount required togive court federal question jurisdiction was present.28 U.S.C.A. 1331 .*1048 Jayson Amster, Upper Marlboro, Md., andHarvey M. Katz, Washington, D. C., for plaintiffs.

James C. Chapin, Ellis J. Koch, and Robert N. Boy-er, Upper Marlboro, Md., for Kelly, Rhoads,Briguglio, Connor, Fitzpatrick, Vasco, Wiseman,and Malberg.

Edward P. Camus, Riverdale, Md., for PrinceGeorge's County, Hatfield, and Tucker.


http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=170Bk268http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=170Bk270http://www.westlaw.com/Digest/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=MCC&DocName=170Bk270http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=USCOAMENDXI&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=78http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=78IIIhttp://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=78k1448http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=78k1448http://www.westlaw.com/Digest/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=MCC&DocName=78k1448http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=42USCAS1983&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=42USCAS1983&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=78http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=78IIIhttp://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=78k1392http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=78k1392http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=78k1395http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=78k1395%284%29http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=78k1395%285%29http://www.westlaw.com/Digest/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=MCC&DocName=78k1395%285%29http://www.westlaw.com/Digest/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=MCC&DocName=78k1395%285%29http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=42USCAS1981&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=170Bhttp://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=170BIhttp://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=170BI%28A%29http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=170BI%28A%29http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=170Bk14http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=170Bk15http://www.westlaw.com/Digest/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=MCC&DocName=170Bk15http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=28USCAS1343&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=170Bhttp://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=170BVhttp://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=170Bk340http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=170Bk340http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=170Bk340.1http://www.westlaw.com/Digest/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=MCC&DocName=170Bk340.1http://www.westlaw.com/Digest/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=MCC&DocName=170Bk340.1http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=28USCAS1331&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=28USCAS1331&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Digest/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=MCC&DocName=170Bk340.1http://www.westlaw.com/Digest/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=MCC&DocName=170Bk340.1http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=170Bk340.1http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=170Bk340http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=170BVhttp://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=170Bhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=28USCAS1343&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Digest/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=MCC&DocName=170Bk15http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=170Bk15http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=170Bk14http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=170BI%28A%29http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=170BIhttp://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=170Bhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=42USCAS1981&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Digest/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=MCC&DocName=78k1395%285%29http://www.westlaw.com/Digest/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=MCC&DocName=78k1395%285%29http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=78k1395%285%29http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=78k1395%284%29http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=78k1395http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=78k1392http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=78IIIhttp://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=78http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=42USCAS1983&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=42USCAS1983&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Digest/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=MCC&DocName=78k1448http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=78k1448http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=78IIIhttp://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=78http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=USCOAMENDXI&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Digest/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=MCC&DocName=170Bk270http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=170Bk270http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=170Bk268


5/21

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

JAMES R. MILLER, Jr., District Judge.

This suit arises out of a tragic incident on January21, 1975, in which the plaintiffs' residence inPrince George's County caught fire and their threechildren were killed. The plaintiffs allege that aninvestigation of them in connection with this fire byvarious agents of Prince George's County FN1 wasmalicious and racially motivated. The plaintiffs arehusband and wife; Mrs. Raffety is black and herhusband is white. According to the amended com-plaint, the central characters in this investigationwere two County police officers, David Hatfieldand R. Tony Tucker. The plaintiffs allege thatshortly after the fire, Mrs. Raffety was brought to apolice barracks in Maryland and confronted by de-fendants Hatfield and Tucker, who detained heragainst her will for a period in excess of 14 hoursduring which time they repeatedly accused her of murdering her own children, repeatedly made herbelieve that she would suffer immediate bodilyharm, repeatedly harassed and intimidated her, andrepeatedly made her suffer extreme emotional dis-tress and physical pain and discomfort. Theamended complaint states that upon hearing that his

wife had been taken to the police barracks, Mr. Raf-fety went to the barracks to obtain her release.Thereupon, allegedly, he also was confronted byOfficers Hatfield and Tucker and was detainedagainst his will for a period in excess of ten hoursduring which time he was subjected to treatmentsimilar to that inflicted upon his wife. The plaintiffsfurther allege that they were denied access to coun-sel during these detentions.

FN1. Hereinafter referred to as the County.

Officers James Fitzpatrick, Robert Vasco, andJames Wiseman are supervisory police officers of the County. The amended complaint states that theinvestigation continued after these detentions andthat the plaintiffs were and continue to be the tar-get of a malicious campaign conducted by defend-ants Hatfield, Tucker, Fitzpatrick, Vasco, and

Wiseman, such campaign having been designed bysaid defendants to discredit the plaintiffs, damagetheir reputation, invade the privacy and sanctity of their lives, and cause them embarrassment, humili-ation, and severe mental and physical distress. Theamended complaint also states that during this cam-paign, oral and written statements (were made) tothe effect that plaintiffs are persons of low moralcharacter who are capable of and did in fact murdertheir own children and that these defendants madetotally unjustified and wrongful inquiry into . . .(their) private lives. The plaintiffs allege that thisentire investigation was inspired by malice and ra-cial prejudice rather than by probable cause to be-lieve that the plaintiffs were the cause of their chil-

dren's deaths.

The County, Winfield Kelly, John W. Rhoads,George Connor, Frank Briguglio, and David J. Mal-berg are also defendants in this suit. Mr. Kelley isthe chief executive officer of the County, and Mr.Rhoads is the chief executive officer of the policedepartment. Mr. Connor is the officer in charge of police training for the County. Messrs. Briguglioand Malberg are associated with the County's firedepartment; Mr. Briguglio is the chief executive of-ficer of that department and Mr. Malberg is em-

ployed by it as a fire investigator.

The plaintiffs allege that their injuries were causedby the establishment by the *1049 individual de-fendants and the County of policies, guidelines, andpatterns of conduct in law enforcement activitieswhich are designed to deny members of the black race, and persons who associate with them, equalprotection of the law. With respect to the individualdefendants only, the plaintiffs more specifically al-lege that included among these policies, guidelines,and patterns of conduct are the hiring and selec-tion as police officers of individuals biased againstmembers of the black race and biased against per-sons who associate with members of the black race;the hiring as police officers of individuals with bru-tal dispositions and with tendencies to violate theconstitutional rights of others; the training of em-




6/21

ployees with law enforcement responsibilities in in-vestigatory methods that are violative of constitu-tional rights and likely to injure citizens; the refusalto discipline or remove from office law enforce-ment personnel whose biases, brutal dispositionsand recklessness violate constitutional rights and doinjury to others; the conduct of criminal arson in-vestigations in a reckless manner so as to cause dir-ectly violations of constitutional rights and greatharm to others; the conduct of police investigationsin a manner deliberately designed to bring harm toindividuals without reasonable cause and to violatethe constitutional rights of citizens.

With respect to Messrs. Briguglio and Malberg, the

following is alleged:The foregoing actions of defendants Hatfield,Tucker, Fitzpatrick, Vasco and Wiseman werecaused in part by the action of defendants Briguglioand Malberg in advising the County police that thefire in question was caused by arson. The aforesaidaction was wrongful, reckless and totally without justification. In taking such action, defendantsBriguglio and Malberg knew that such action woulddirectly cause great injury to plaintiffs. Such actionof defendants Briguglio and Malberg was part of a

continuing pattern of conduct of said defendantwhich directly and repeately (sic) violates the con-stitutional rights of citizens.

The suit is brought pursuant to the FourteenthAmendment and to 42 U.S.C. ss 19 81 and 1983with jurisdiction alleged under 28 U.S.C. ss 133 1and 1343 . The plaintiffs pray compensatory andpunitive damages against the defendants in theamount of $250,000 along with such other and fur-ther relief as may be just and proper for theviolation of rights guaranteed by the Constitution

of the United States, false imprisonment, assault,invasion of privacy, slander, libel, negligence andwillful infliction of mental distress. The case isnow before the court on defendants' motions to dis-miss the amended complaint.

I.

Defendants Tucker and Hatfield

Officers Tucker and Hatfield have moved to dis-miss the amended complaint because it fails to statea claim upon which relief can be granted. Theycontend that the alleged improper interrogation didnot constitute a denial of any constitutional rightsof the plaintiffs and cite numerous cases whichhold that the failure to advise one of Miranda rightsdoes not create a cause of action under the CivilRights Acts. See, e. g., Allen v. Eicher, 295 F.Supp.1184 (D.Md.1969 ) and Thornton v. Buchmann, 392

F.2d 870 (7th Cir. 1968 ).

These defendants also cite Ambrek v. Clark, 28 7F.Supp. 208 (E.D.Pa.1968 ) and Duncan v. Nelson ,466 F.2d 939 (7th Cir. 1972 ). In Ambrek, the courtindicated that a cause of action could be maintainedunder the Civil Rights Acts where a confession ob-tained from the plaintiff in violation of the preceptsof Miranda was subsequently used against theplaintiff in a criminal proceeding. In Duncan, thecourt found that a civil rights action was maintain-able upon the allegation that an involuntary confes-sion was elicited from the plaintiff by police usingtactics which violated the due process clause of theFourteenth Amendment. These defendants then ar-gue that since no confessions were obtained andused against the Plaintiffs there has been nodeprivation of any rights, privilege, or immunityprovided *1050 by the Constitution or the Laws of the United States.

[1] This argument misconstrues the nature of plaintiffs' suit. It assumes that it is based solelyupon the failure to provide Miranda warnings andthe attempted elicitation from the plaintiffs of aninvoluntary confession. However, the gravamen of plaintiffs' amended complaint is their contentionthat the detention, interrogation, and subsequent in-vestigation of them by Officers Tucker and Hatfieldwas racially motivated and not based upon probable


http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=42USCAS1981&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=42USCAS1983&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=28USCAS1331&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=28USCAS1343&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=345&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1969113420http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=345&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1969113420http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=350&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1968117152http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=350&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1968117152http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=345&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1968100130http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=345&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1968100130http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=350&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1972111981http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=350&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1972111981http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=350&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1972111981http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=350&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1972111981http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=345&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1968100130http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=345&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1968100130http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=350&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1968117152http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=350&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1968117152http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=345&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1969113420http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=345&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1969113420http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=28USCAS1343&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=28USCAS1331&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=42USCAS1983&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=42USCAS1981&FindType=L


7/21

cause. These allegations constitute a cause of actionunder 42 U.S.C. s 19 83. The plaintiffs' amendedcomplaint does not even mention Miranda warn-ings. FN2

FN2. The plaintiffs' only allegation alongthis line is that during their detention byOfficers Tucker and Hatfield they weredenied access to counsel.

[2] Officers Tucker and Hatfield also argue that thealleged defamation of the plaintiffs fails to state aclaim upon which relief can be granted in that a de-famed person has not been deprived of any right,privilege, or immunity secured to him by the Con-stitution and Laws of the United States. However,these defendants fail to consider the doctrine of pendent jurisdiction which a federal court has thepower to exercise when the state and federal claimsderive from a common nucleus of operativefact. United Mine Workers v. Gibbs, 383 U .S.715, 725, 86 S.Ct. 1130, 1138, 16 L.Ed.2d 218(1966) . If, considered without regard to their fed-eral or state character, a plaintiff's claims are suchthat he would ordinarily be expected to try them allin one judicial proceeding, then, assuming substan-tiality of the federal issues, there is power in federal

courts to hear the whole. Id. (Emphasis in origin-al). The court believes that the state claims allegedagainst Officers Tucker and Hatfield meet theGibbs test. Although this power to hear the stateclaims need not be exercised in every case, consid-erations of judicial economy, convenience, and fair-ness to the parties, along with an absence of factorscalling for hesitation, compel the court to exerciseits power in this instance. See id. at 726, 86 S.Ct .1130 .

[3] Finally, these defendants argue that the

plaintiffs have failed to allege sufficiently specificfacts to sustain several of their allega-tions. However, the Federal Rules of Civil Proced-ure require only that a defendant be given fair no-tice of a claim and the grounds upon which itrests. Dearman v. Woodson, 429 F.2d 1288 (10t hCir. 1970 ). The court believes that the amended

complaint is sufficiently specific under the Rules.

II.

Defendants Kelly, Rhoads, Connor, Fitzpatrick,Vasco, Wiseman, Briguglio, and Malberg

[4][5] These defendants also have moved to dismissthe amended complaint because it allegedly fails tostate a claim upon which relief can be granted.They first contend that a cause of action under 42U.S.C. ss 1981 and1983 cannot be brought for dam-ages against government officials or employees act-ing in their official capacities. See Bennett v. Grav-elle, 323 F.Supp. 203 (D.Md.1971 ), aff'd, 451 F.2d1011 (4th Cir. 1971 ). The court agrees with this ar-gument as to s 1983. As to s 1981, recent authorit-ative decisions belie the argument. District o f Columbia v. Carter, 409 U.S. 418, 93 S.Ct. 602, 3 4L.Ed.2d 613 (197 3); Tillman v. Wheaton-Have nRecreation Assoc., Inc.,410 U.S. 431, 440, 93 S.Ct .1090, 35 L.Ed.2d 403 (1973 ); Baker v. F. & F. In -vestment Co., 489 F.2d 829 (7th Cir. 1973 ); Robin-son v. Conlisk, 385 F.Supp. 529 (N.D.Ill.197 4). Inany event, the answer to the argument is simply that

this action is brought against these defendants indi-vidually and not in their official capacities.

Their next contention is that traditional doctrinesof Governmental Immunity are an absolute defenseeven if the aforesaid defendants are subject to suitsunder 42 U.S.C. s 198 1 and 42 U.S.C. s 198 3. Thehistory of Supreme Court decisions with respect toimmunity of governmental officials *1051 under s1983 is summarized in Wood v. Strickland, 42 0U.S. 308, 316-318, 95 S.Ct. 992, 998, 43 L.Ed. 2d214 (1974 ), as follows:

This Court has decided three cases dealing withthe scope of the immunity protecting various typesof governmental officials from liability for damagesunder s 1983. In Tenney v. Brandhove, 341 U. S.367 (71 S.Ct. 783, 95 L.Ed. 1019) (1951 ), the ques-tion was found to be one essentially of statutory


http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=42USCAS1983&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1966112628&ReferencePosition=1138http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1966112628&ReferencePosition=1138http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1966112628&ReferencePosition=1138http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1966112628http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1966112628http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=350&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1970101542http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=350&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1970101542http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=42USCAS1981&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=42USCAS1981&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=345&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1971104550http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=345&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1971104550http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=350&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1971113502http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=350&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1971113502http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=42USCAS1983&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=42USCAS1981&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1973126310http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1973126310http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1973126310http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1973126341http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1973126341http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1973126341http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=350&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1973112731http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=350&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1973112731http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=345&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1974107799http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=345&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1974107799http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=42USCAS1981&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=42USCAS1983&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=42USCAS1983&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=42USCAS1983&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1975129741&ReferencePosition=998http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1975129741&ReferencePosition=998http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1975129741&ReferencePosition=998http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=42USCAS1983&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1951119601http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1951119601http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1951119601http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1951119601http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=42USCAS1983&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1975129741&ReferencePosition=998http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1975129741&ReferencePosition=998http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1975129741&ReferencePosition=998http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=42USCAS1983&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=42USCAS1983&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=42USCAS1983&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=42USCAS1981&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=345&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1974107799http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=345&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1974107799http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=350&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1973112731http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=350&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1973112731http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1973126341http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1973126341http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1973126341http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1973126310http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1973126310http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1973126310http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=42USCAS1981&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=42USCAS1983&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=350&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1971113502http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=350&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1971113502http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=345&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1971104550http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=345&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1971104550http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=42USCAS1981&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=42USCAS1981&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=350&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1970101542http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=350&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1970101542http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1966112628http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1966112628http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1966112628&ReferencePosition=1138http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1966112628&ReferencePosition=1138http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1966112628&ReferencePosition=1138http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=42USCAS1983&FindType=L


8/21

construction. Noting that the language of s 1983 issilent with respect to immunities, the Court con-cluded that there was no basis for believing thatCongress intended to eliminate the traditional im-munity of legislators from civil liability for actsdone within their sphere of legislative action. Thatimmunity, so well grounded in history and reason .. ., id., at 376 (71 S.Ct. at 788 ), was absolute andconsequently did not depend upon the motivationsof the legislators. In Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547 ,554 (87 S.Ct. 1213, 1218, 18 L.Ed.2d 288) (196 7),finding that (t)he legislative record gives no clearindication that Congress meant to abolish wholesaleall common-law immunities' in enacting s 1983, weconcluded that the common-law doctrine of abso-

lute judicial immunity survived. Similarly, s 1983did not preclude application of the traditional rulethat a policeman, making an arrest in good faith andwith probable cause, is not liable for damages, al-though the person arrested proves innocent. Con-sequently the Court said: Although the matter isnot entirely free from doubt, the same considerationwould seem to require excusing him from liabilityfor acting under a statute that he reasonably be-lieved to be valid but that was later held unconstitu-tional, on its face or as applied. Id., at 555 (8 7S.Ct. at 1218 ) (footnote omitted). Finally, last Termwe held that the chief executive officer of a State,the senior and subordinate officers of the State'sNational Guard, and the president of a state-controlled university were not absolutely immunefrom liability under s 1983, but instead were en-titled to immunity, under prior precedent and inlight of the obvious need to avoid discouraging ef-fective official action by public officers chargedwith a considerable range of responsibility and dis-cretion, only if they acted in good faith as definedby the Court:

(I)n varying scope, a qualified immunity is avail-able to officers of the executive branch of govern-ment, the variation being dependent upon the scopeof discretion and responsibilities of the office andall the circumstances as they reasonably appeared atthe time of the action on which liability is sought to

be based. It is the existence of reasonable groundsfor the belief formed at the time and in light of allthe circumstances, coupled with a good-faith belief,that affords a basis for qualified immunity of exec-utive officers for acts performed in the course of of-ficial conduct. Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232 ,247-248 (94 S.Ct. 1683, 1692, 40 L.Ed.2 d 90)(1974) .

Common-law tradition, recognized in our prior de-cisions, and strong public-policy reasons also leadto a construction of s 1983 extending a qualifiedgood-faith immunity to school board members fromliability for damages under that section. Althoughthere have been differing emphases and formula-

tions of the common-law immunity of public schoolofficials in cases of student expulsion or suspen-sion, state courts have generally recognized thatsuch officers should be protected from tort liabilityunder state law for all good-faith nonmalicious ac-tion taken to fulfill their official duties.

[6] Obviously, any immunity which may extend tothese defendants is qualified and subject to theirproof at trial that they acted upon reasonablegrounds and in good faith. FN3 This defense cannotsupport a motion to dismiss.

FN3. But see Bennett v. Gravelle, 3 23F.Supp. 203 (D.Md.1971 ), aff'd, 451 F.2d1011 (4th Cir. 1971 ), where the court wasof the opinion that the defenses of goodfaith and probable cause are not applicablewhere racial discrimination is proved.

*1052 [7] Their third contention is that theamended complaint contains no specific facts sup-porting direct participation by them and that thedoctrine of respondeat superior does not apply to

actions under 42 U.S.C. ss 19 81 and 1983 . Thecourt agrees that the doctrine of respondeat superioris not applicable under ss 1981 and 1983 . See Ben-nett v. Gravelle, supra, at 21 4; Richardson v. Snow,340 F.Supp. 1261, 1262 (D.Md.197 2); Barrow v .Bounds, 498 F.2d 1397 (4th Cir. 197 4). However,the allegations against these defendants are not


http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=42USCAS1983&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1951119601http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1967129492&ReferencePosition=1218http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1967129492&ReferencePosition=1218http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=42USCAS1983&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=42USCAS1983&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1967129492&ReferencePosition=1218http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1967129492&ReferencePosition=1218http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=42USCAS1983&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1974127164&ReferencePosition=1692http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1974127164&ReferencePosition=1692http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1974127164&ReferencePosition=1692http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=42USCAS1983&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=345&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1971104550http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=345&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1971104550http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=350&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1971113502http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=350&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1971113502http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=42USCAS1981&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=42USCAS1983&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=42USCAS1981&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=42USCAS1983&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1971104550http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1971104550http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=345&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1972104730&ReferencePosition=1262http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=345&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1972104730&ReferencePosition=1262http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=350&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1974203047http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=350&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1974203047http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=350&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1974203047http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=350&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1974203047http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=345&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1972104730&ReferencePosition=1262http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=345&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1972104730&ReferencePosition=1262http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1971104550http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1971104550http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=42USCAS1983&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=42USCAS1981&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=42USCAS1983&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=42USCAS1981&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=350&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1971113502http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=350&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1971113502http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=345&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1971104550http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=345&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1971104550http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=42USCAS1983&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1974127164&ReferencePosition=1692http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1974127164&ReferencePosition=1692http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1974127164&ReferencePosition=1692http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=42USCAS1983&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1967129492&ReferencePosition=1218http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1967129492&ReferencePosition=1218http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=42USCAS1983&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=42USCAS1983&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1967129492&ReferencePosition=1218http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1967129492&ReferencePosition=1218http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1951119601http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=42USCAS1983&FindType=L


9/21

based upon the doctrine of respondeat superior.

[8] Officers Fitzpatrick, Vasco, and Wiseman arealleged to have participated in a racially motivatedinvestigation of the plaintiffs. Messrs. Briguglioand Malberg are alleged to have advised the Countypolice without justification that the fire in theplaintiffs' residence was caused by arson. Messrs.Kelly and Rhoads and Officer Connor along withthe other defendants are alleged to have establishedpolicies, guidelines and patterns of conduct de-signed to deny members of the black race equalprotection of the law. These allegations set forthclaims against these defendants based upon theirown acts and not those of others.

The fourth argument of these defendants is thatplaintiffs' complaints for false imprisonment, as-sault, invasion of privacy, slander, libel, negli-gence, and infliction of willful distress are not with-in the scope of 28 U.S.C. s 133 1 because they donot arise under the Constitution, Law or Treaties of the United States. The court agrees; however, jur-isdiction over these claims is proper under the doc-trine of pendent jurisdiction.

Finally, citing Schlesinger v. Reservists to Stop the

War, 418 U.S. 208, 94 S.Ct. 2925, 41 L.Ed.2d 70 6(1974) , these defendants contend: As specificallyconcerns the defendants' promulgation of policies,guidelines and patterns of practice, the plaintiffsclearly do not have standing to sue because their in-terest therein is no more than that held in commonby all members of the public.

In Schlesinger, the Court was concerned with thestanding of United States citizens and taxpayers tochallenge under Article I, section 6, clause 2 of theConstitution FN4 the eligibility of a member of

Congress to hold a commission in the ArmedForces Reserve during his continuance in office.The Court first considered plaintiffs' standing ascitizens and held that standing to sue may not bepredicated upon an interest of the kind alleged herewhich is held in common by all members of thepublic, because of the necessarily abstract nature of

the injury all citizens share. Id. at 220, 94 S.Ct. at2932. The Court also refused to allow plaintiffs'standing as taxpayers because they did not meet thetest set out in Flast v. Cohen, 392 U.S. 83, 88 S.Ct .1942, 20 L.Ed.2d 947 (1968 ). In discussing citizenstanding, the Court quoted from Ex parte Levitt,302 U.S. 633, 634 , 58 S.Ct. 1, 82 L.Ed. 493 (1937 ),as follows: It is an established principle that to en-title a private individual to invoke the judicialpower to determine the validity of executive or le-gislative action he must show that he has sustainedor is immediately in danger of sustaining a directinjury as the result of that action and it is not suffi-cient that he has merely a general interest commonto all members of the public. 418 U.S. at

220-221, 94 S.Ct. at 293 1.

FN4. Article I, s 6, cl. 2, of the Fed eralConstitution provides:

No Senator or Representative shall, dur-ing the Time for which he was elected, beappointed to any civil Office under the Au-thority of the United States, which shallhave been created, or the Emolumentswhereof shall have been increased duringsuch time; and no person holding any Of-

fice under the United States, shall be aMember of either House during his Con-tinuance in Office.

[9] Plaintiffs allege that the policies, guidelines andpatterns of practice established by these defendantscaused them to be detained, interrogated, and in-vestigated because of Mrs. Raffety's race. Obvi-ously, they allege direct, non-abstract injury whichis unique from that sustained in common by allmembers of the public, and, consequently, theyhave standing to make this claim.

*1053 III

Prince George's County


http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=28USCAS1331&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1974127245http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1974127245http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1974127245http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1974127245&ReferencePosition=2932http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1974127245&ReferencePosition=2932http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1968131219http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1968131219http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=780&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1937122883&ReferencePosition=634http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=780&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1937122883&ReferencePosition=634http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&DocName=58SCT1&FindType=Yhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1974127245&ReferencePosition=2931http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1974127245&ReferencePosition=2931http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=USCOARTIS6CL2&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=USCOARTIS6CL2&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=USCOARTIS6CL2&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=USCOARTIS6CL2&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1974127245&ReferencePosition=2931http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1974127245&ReferencePosition=2931http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&DocName=58SCT1&FindType=Yhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=780&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1937122883&ReferencePosition=634http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=780&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1937122883&ReferencePosition=634http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1968131219http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1968131219http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1974127245&ReferencePosition=2932http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1974127245&ReferencePosition=2932http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1974127245http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1974127245http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1974127245http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=28USCAS1331&FindType=L


10/21

A.

The County has moved to dismiss the amended

complaint because of lack of jurisdiction and thefailure to state a claim against it upon which relief can be granted.

[10] The County first contends that it is not amen-able to suit under 42 U.S.C. s 198 3 because it is nota person within the meaning of that statute. Thecourt agrees. See Monroe v. Pape, 365 U.S. 167, 81S.Ct. 473, 5 L.Ed.2d 492 (1 961) , and Order of September 3, 1975, previously entered in this case(Paper #12).

The County's second contention is that a claim hasnot been stated against it cognizable under 28U.S.C. s 1331 .

In Patterson v. Ramsey, 413 F.Supp. 523, 527- 29(D.Md.1976) , Judge Young framed the problem asfollows:

The Fourteenth Amendment Issues:

(a) Does 28 U.S.C. s 133 1 give this Court jurisdic-tion over cases brought directly under the Four-

teenth Amendment?(b) Does the Fourteenth Amendment provide acause of action for injunctive relief and/or dam-ages?

He then went on to state the following:The Court has separated the issues of jurisdictionand cause of action (as is reflected above). Failureto separate these issues has often resulted in con-ceptual confusion by courts and commentators.

Before discussing these issues, it is best to determ-ine what is at stake in their resolution. The SupremeCourt has determined that municipalities and theiragencies cannot be sued under 42 U.S.C. s 198 3 formonetary or injunctive relief, since they are notpersons' within the contemplation of the statute.Kenosha v. Bruno, 412 U.S. 507, 93 S.Ct. 2222, 37

L.Ed.2d 109 (1973 ); Monroe v. Pape, 365 U.S. 167,81 S.Ct. 473, 5 L.Ed.2d 492 (196 1). Thus, if theseentities can be sued in federal court, they must besued directly under the Fourteenth Amendment.

(a) The first issue which must be addressed is thequestion of this Court's jurisdiction (under section1331 ) of suits filed directly under the FourteenthAmendment. 28 U.S.C. s 133 1 provides as follows:

(a) The district courts shall have original jurisdic-tion of all civil actions wherein the matter in con-troversy exceeds the sum or value of $10,000, ex-clusive of interest and costs, and arises under theConstitution, laws or treaties of the United States.(Emphasis supplied.)

A suit directly based on the Fourteenth Amendmentwould seem to be the paradigm of a case arisingunder the Constitution. Furthermore, the personrequirement of section 198 3 is absent from s1331(a) . The conclusion that jurisdiction exists issupported by overwhelming authority. Hostrop v.Board of Junior College District No. 515, 523 F.2 d569 (7th Cir. 1975 ); Gray v. Union County Interme-diate Education District, 520 F.2d 803 (9th Cir.1975) ; Calvin v. Conlisk, 520 F.2d 1 (7th Cir.

1975) ; Hanna v. Drobnick, 514 F.2d 393 (6th C ir.1975) ; Roane v. Callisburg Independent Sch oolDistrict, 511 F.2d 633 (5th Cir. 19 75) ; Skehan v.Board of Trustees of Bloomsburg State Coll ege,501 F.2d 31 (3d Cir. 1974 ); Traylor v. City of Am-arillo, 492 F.2d 1156 (5th Cir. 19 74) ; Clipper v.Takoma Park, Maryland, Civil No. 73-295-B(D.Md. March 25, 1975); Dahl v. City of Palo Alto,372 F.Supp. 647 (N.D.Cal.197 4); Perzanowski v .Salvio, 369 F.Supp. 223 (D.Conn.197 4). See alsothe remand instructions in City of Kenosha v.Bruno, 412 U.S. 507, 93 S.Ct. 2222, 37 L.E d.2d

109 (1973 ), and Cox v. Stanton, 529 F.2d 47 (4 thCir. 1975 ). Jurisdiction is available under 28 U.S.C.s 1331 for a suit directly under the FourteenthAmendment.

(b) The finding of a jurisdictional basis for the suitdoes not end the inquiry, however. The Court must


http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=42USCAS1983&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1961125426http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1961125426http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=28USCAS1331&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=28USCAS1331&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=345&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1976142964&ReferencePosition=527http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=345&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1976142964&ReferencePosition=527http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=28USCAS1331&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=42USCAS1983&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1973126414http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1961125426http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1961125426http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=28USCAS1331&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=28USCAS1331&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=28USCAS1331&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=42USCAS1983&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=28USCAS1331&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=28USCAS133

rafferty v. pgc 423 f.supp. 1045

Documents