CHARLES WHITMORE LA BAR, JR., PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,
v.
SPECIAL AGENT GARY ROYER ET AL., DEFENDANTS-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.
A plaintiff has no personal cause of action against a federal agent acting within the scope of authority for property seized legally under a warrant. Claims under § 1983 and § 1985(3) were also properly dismissed.
Plaintiff sued a federal agent for actions taken under a warrant. The district court adopted the government's brief, which contained errors. The plain…
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 Tort Claims Act cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM:
Affirmed. Although we agree that the plaintiff has no personal cause of action against the federal agent who, acting within the scope of his authority, received and holds property seized legally under a warrant, the district court adopted the brief of the Government which contains patent errors, repeated in the brief before us.
42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 action does not require class-based, discriminatory animus or intent. The statute does require state action. Norton v. McShane, 332 F. 2d 855, 862 (5th Cir. 1964).
Plaintiff did not state a claim under 42 U.S.C.A. § 1985(3) because he did not assert racial or otherwise class-based, invidiously discriminatory animus as required by that provision. Griffin v. Breckenridge, 403 U.S. 88, 102, 91 S.Ct. 1790, 29 L.Ed.2d 338 (1971).
Bivens v. Six Unknown Federal Narcotics Agents, 403 U.S. 388, 91 S.Ct. 1999, 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971) does not depend upon lack of alternative remedies, as asserted, but is based on an illegal, warrantless search.
Contrary to the Government’s assertion, Rule 41(e) provides only a “person aggrieved by an unlawful search and seizure” with a remedy.
We need not consider whether plaintiff would have a cause of action against the United States under the Tort Claims Act, because the United States is not a party and no such claim has been asserted.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Rodriguez v. Ritchey, 556 F.2d 1185 (5th Cir. 1977)
Authorities Cited
- Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (U.S. 1971)
- Isbell Enters., Inc. v. Citizens Cas. Co. OF NEW York, 431 F.2d 409 (5th Cir. 1970)
- Griffin v. Breckenridge, 403 U.S. 88 (U.S. 1971)
- Norton v. McSHANE, 332 F.2d 855 (5th Cir. 1964)