ERNESTO MONTANA, JR., PETITIONER-APPELLANT,
v.
LAN E. HARRELSON, WARDEN, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, RESPONDENT-APPELLEE
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 erred in dismissing the case for lack of jurisdiction based on a property rights exception, as subsequent Supreme Court precedent has abolished such a distinction.
Appellant sued the warden for seizure of personal property, alleging jurisdiction under federal statutes. The district court dismissed for lack of fed…
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 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Claim cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM:
Appellant sued the warden of his Texas state correctional institution under 42 U.S.C.A. §§ 1982, 1983 (1970), seeking damages for an alleged seizure of personal property. He alleged jurisdiction by virtue of 28 U.S.C.A. § 1343. The district court dismissed the complaint for lack of jurisdiction.
The court assumed for the purpose of argument that the defendant had taken certain personal property from the plaintiff and had refused to return it to him. The court dismissed the complaint for lack of federal jurisdiction on the ground that “Section 1983 does not extend to property and monetary rights generally,” and that Section 1982 requires the deprivation of property to be racially motivated, which was not alleged. The court thus relied on the traditional view that the exception provided in Section 1343 (3) to the minimum amount in controversy requirement for federal jurisdiction was limited to deprivation of personal liberty, which is incapable of money valuation. This view originated in Justice Stone’s concurring opinion in Hague v. C.I.O., 307 U.S. 496, 59 S.Ct. 954, 83 L.Ed. 1423 (1939).
Subsequent to the dismissal of this case by the district court, however the United States Supreme Court specifically rejected the property right-personal liberty dichotomy in Lynch v. Household Finance Co., 405 U.S. 538, 92 S.Ct. 1113, 31 L.Ed.2d 424 (1972), which holds that there is no distinction between personal liberties and proprietary rights with respect to jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.A. § 1343(3), and that the jurisdictional amount provided by 28 U.S.C.A. § 1331 (a) is not required in a Section 1983 action. The Supreme Court then granted certiorari in Weddle v. Director, Patux-ent Institution, 436 F. 2d 342 (4th Cir. 1970), and vacated and remanded the dismissal for lack of jurisdiction for further consideration in the light of Lynch, 405 U.S. 1036, 92 S.Ct. 1113, 31 L.Ed.2d 424 (1972). The Weddle case, similar to the one at bar, involved a suit for personal property valued at $3.52.
The order of dismissal is vacated and the case is remanded to the district court for reconsideration of the jurisdictional issue in the light of Lynch.
We express no opinion at this stage of the proceeding as to whether or not there are any other grounds for dismissal of the complaint for lack of federal court jurisdiction.
Vacated and remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Carter v. Estelle, 519 F.2d 1136 (5th Cir. 1975)
-
Hansen v. MAY, 502 F.2d 728 (9th Cir. 1974)
-
Watson v. Stynchombe, 504 F.2d 393 (5th Cir. 1974)
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Isbell Enters., Inc. v. Citizens Cas. Co. OF NEW York, 431 F.2d 409 (5th Cir. 1970)
- Hague v. Comm. for Indus. Org., 307 U.S. 496 (U.S. 1939)
- Lynch v. Household Fin. Corp., 405 U.S. 538 (U.S. 1972)
- Weddle v. Dir., Patuxent Inst., 436 F.2d 342 (4th Cir. 1970)
- Berberian v. Rhode Island, 405 U.S. 1036 (U.S. 1972)