*2 person, tiff’s of the seizure certain of his Atty., Gutknecht, Morre State’s John personal propеrty, introduction into the Chicago, Mortimer, Peregrine, J. M. John unlawfully proper evidence of seized the Meyer Nash, ll., H. Gold B. Gordon I ty, perjured and use of tes the deliberate Murray, State’s stein, Asst. C. timony 42 in his Title trial. U.S.C.A. Magid, Karton, Attys., Arthur L. Louis gives depri 1983 of a cause action for Chicago, Ill., Counsel, of Cоrp. Assts. process vation and of due Section 1985 appellees. counsel, gives deрrivation of SWAIM, and Cir- Before FINNEGAN Ortega equal protection. Ragen, v. 7 Cir. Judge. PLATT, Judges, District cuit and 561; Moldovan, 6 216 F.2d McShane v. 2; Cir., 1016, 1018, 172 F.2d Bottone SWAIM, Circuit Lindsley, Cir., 705, 706, v. 10 Jennings, plaintiff, 1948 the 944, certiorari denied 336 U.S. 69 S.Ct. arrested, and cоnvicted of a was tried 810, 93 1101. Section L.Ed. 1983 does felony. State sent to the Illinois He was conspiracy, not mention while Section years Penitentiary. later he was Three Therefore, 1985 does. the Act creates a granted Illinois a new trial the conspiracy deny of cause to ch. S.H.A. protection equal conspiracy but not for a 38, seq., and sent reconvicted deny 826 et process. to Mitchell due v. Green prison where he is now incarcer ough, back to 184, Cir., 9 F.2d 100 186. There Jennings Illinois, v. of must, State ated. See course, of be an actual denial of 119; 123, L.Ed. 96 342 72 prоcess U.S. due before a cause arises. Jennings, 21, 102 411 Ill. N.E.2d v. complaint clearly The does not 824. state a of action for a cause denial of conviction, plain- After his second еqual protection. Although alleges attorneys police and tiff sued the state’s improрer part acts on the of the defend officers, had arrested him before who ants, nothing there is to indicate that trial, for under the Civil first potentially citizen of Illinois is not Rights Act, 42 U.S.C.A. 1983 and §§ subject to thе same treatment. See Mit complaint dismissed the The lower court Greenough, supra. v. chell If com a cause state of action and for failure to plaint of states a cаuse action it is for appeal was taken. deprivation process, thereforе, of due charges conspiracy of are with defendants, Boyle, of the Three since, already effect, pointed out, out attorneys, Phillips, are state’s Brown and conspiracy deny to due does not alleges they complaint and the give a of action under cause the Civil capacities. acting official As in their Rights Act. they within the rule fall announced chаrges Cawley reduced, complaint by Warren, Cir., Thus v. in 7 this court Cawley (Nester, police officers and In the case we held Piotter F.2d 74. three illegal attorneys acting Vodvarka) search with and sei- when in that state’s zure, (Piotter) capacities by of them protected and one with are their official immunity perjury. also in civil shows that cases that the same by judges. Laughlin a new trial plaintiff was applicable See U.S.App.D.C. Rosenman, and convicted of Illinois of the 163 F. State time. crime a second We must cases cited. The same and 2d assume, an con- without tо state a cause of action fails therefore years by trary, three served that the аbove named defendants. the three as to process requires. more than Peoplе conviction because of his first Colorado, supra. were taken when he into State Bе- account time, appeared complaint, he cause all sentenced аnd that in the second imprison- properly it was has not suffered additional dismissed the District *3 Court. ment The facts because of his first trial.
suppоrt assumption. Plaintiff’s first Affirmed. years; twenty-five was for
sentence ten to to fif- his second sentence was for three FINNEGAN, Circuit years. teen There is no that I concur in the result reached in this fair, trial wаs not or that second opinion, but not with all that is said. rights plaintiff’s constitutional had not respected. contrary, ap- been pears On plaintiff’s own from the rights fully respected that
second trial. Rights The Civil Acts were en rights protect
acted to the civil in
dividuals, discipline local and not law enforcement officers for acts that are Anthony COPPOLA and Karl M. States, later corrected. v. United Screws Nоble, Appellants, 91, 98, 65 89 L.Ed. 325 U.S. S.Ct. Weltmer, Cir., 1495; Lyons v. America, UNITED STATES of provides adequate 473. The commonlaw Appellee. damages against errant law actions No. 14375. enforcement officials. Sеe United States Court of Colorado, 25, 30, 1, of State 338 U.S. Ninth Circuit. L.Ed. 1782. de termining whether or not rights deprived, have been we stitutional everything transpired. must look at that It obvious from that as today, stands has beеn ac
he required by
corded
Fourteenth Amendment. what,
If we should allow anything, only temporary denial,
if a every new
then trial under the Illinois or like states, give
procedures in other would
rise to 42 U.S.C.A. 1983 or 1985. We Congress did are sure not intend result. Rights purpose of the Civil regard has been achieved with Acts plaintiff. He has been a fair hearing in the state courts with guarantee required by
procedural improper Amendment. The Fourteenth against
ly was not used obtained evidence trial, in the second which him is even