Robert E. Nesmith v. Alan TaylorRobert E. Nesmith v. Alan Taylor
- Reporters:
- ,
- Before:
- Goldberg
This appeal from summary judgment in favor of the defendant in a section 1983 action presents several difficult issues and, due to the factual peculiarities of the case, one easy issue. We believe that the easy issue is dispositive of the case and, thus, that it is best to postpone the more difficult issues for another day.
I. BACKGROUND
A. Facts
Nesmith owns a piece of lаnd at 105 Gulf Freeway, La Marque, Texas. During the 1970’s, Nesmith operated the land as a trailer park after improving it with concrеte driveways, walkways, some buildings, and a swimming pool. Operation as a trailer park became uneconomical, so Nesmith demolished much of the improvements and filled the swimming pool with some of the rubble.
On August 14, 1979, defendant Taylor, the La Marque building inspector, swore a complaint against Nesmith alleging two criminal violations: failure to complete demolition work in violation of section 103.4 of the Southern Standard Building Code and removal of a fence around a swimming poоl in violation of La Marque Ordinance # 376. The La Marque Corporation Court Clerk sent Nesmith a summons to appear, which stated that “[fjailure to appear will result in issuance of a warrant for your arrest which will result in additional expensе for you.” Record at 26. On August 25, 1979, a bench trial was held in the La Marque Corporation Court. Nesmith was found guilty on the demolition chаrge and not guilty on the swimming pool charge.
B. Proceedings Below
On September 28, 1979, Nesmith filed suit in federal district court against Taylor, contending that Taylor maliciously and without probable cause had sworn the complaint against Nesmith on the swimming pool charge. Nesmith contended that this supported a cause of action under
II. FINDING THE FEDERAL RIGHT
This case is basicаlly a suit for false arrest and malicious prosecution. These two causes of action are, of course, stаte tort claims. It is fundamental to our federal jurisprudence that state tort claims are not actionable under federal law; a plaintiff under
It is also fundamental to our jurisprudence that each alleged constitutional deprivation be considered on its own facts. This case presents a factual circumstance that is, to our knowledge, unique. One ground supporting the summons issued Nesmith, that concerning the demolition work, proved to be valid.
1
Thus, Nesmith legiti
Given the fact that Nesmith was under a legitimate compulsion to appear before the corporation court, we find no deprivation of a constitutional right in an additional compulsion to make the same appearance. Nesmith’s fourteenth amendment claim asserts a deprivation of liberty, but, put simply, no deprivation resulted from the рresumedly groundless charge. Nesmith’s fourth amendment claim asserts an unreasonable seizure. A fourth amendment seizure is alsо predicated on a diminution of liberty. See, e.g., United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U.S. 873, 878, 95 S.Ct. 2574, 2578, 45 L.Ed.2d 607 (1975). Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 16, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 1977, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968). Again, given the compulsion of the valid charge, the invalid charge just did not reducе Nesmith’s liberty. An additional lock on the door of a jail cell does not further diminish the liberty of the occupants, nor doеs an additional reason to appear before the La Marque Corporation Court diminish the liberty of someone already under a duty to make such an appearance.
III. CAVEATS
The peculiar facts of this case allоw a narrow disposition, which we prefer, but they would also allow discussion of more significant issues. Accordingly, we think it prudent tо explicitly disclaim any opinion on some of the other issues left latent in this case. First, we are not suggesting that under all circumstances, the presence of a valid compulsion means that invalid compulsions do not deprive the рlaintiff of a federal right; we are merely saying that under these facts Nesmith cannot show an unreasonable seizure or a deprivation of a liberty interest. Second, for purposes of this case we need not decide whether а summons backed by threat of arrest could ever constitute a deprivation of liberty or a seizure. Third, we are not sаying that Nesmith suffered only a minimal violation of his rights that the federal courts will not recognize; indeed, the point we are mаking is that Nesmith suffered no deprivation of rights.
CONCLUSION
As the court said in Henry v. City of Minneapolis, 512 F.Supp. 293, 297 (D.Minn. 1981) (footnotes omitted, emphasis added):
The instant case is not one that cries out for federal redress of plaintiffs injuries. Plaintiff suffered no actual loss of liberty in connection with the proceedings instituted against him. At worst, he suffered an irritating and vexatious experiеnce at the hands of the city building inspectors. Plaintiff has an effective state remedy sounding in tort. Moreover, he is seeking redress for individual injury rather than an injury suffered by a class of persons, or for recurring actions by government officials. All of thеse factors render this action inappropriate for an exercise of jurisdiction under the Civil Rights Act.
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.
AFFIRMED.
Notes
. Nesmith raises no claim concerning the charge for which he was found guilty, nor could he do so. Shank v. Spruill, 406 F.2d 756 (5th Cir.1969); Jones v. Bales, 58 F.R.D. 453, 460 (N.D.Ga.1972), aff‘d 480 F.2d 805 (5th Cir. 1973).