William Link v. Wabash Railroad Company

аpplication based prison. His State LINK, Plaintiff-Appellant, William obtained upon that statements claim during (November period a him 14, 1958) January in which 13, 1957, to COMPANY, WABASH RAILROAD Defendant-Appellee. wit- a as material detained he was improper- were authorities No. ness State ly admitted in evidence Appeals United States Court deprived due thereby wаs Seventh Circuit. Amendment, (Fourteenth process of law May Constitution). Upon vari- United States Rehearing Denied June including por- a papers, ous briefs and trial, the State in the tion record develop- any further trial court without application. denied ment of facts prob- granted a certificate This court cause. able many decisions A review bearing le- presented

gal problem aspects now full importance a

illustrates background a

complete before factual as to whether

conclusion is reached funda- with that tainted

State thus vio- would unfairness which

mental rights.

late relator’s constitutional being held a material

Relator as How- crime murder.

witness sufficiently

ever, alone is not this fact were the circum-

informative. What he was as

stances under Was this detention

material witness? try by deception

merely or con- ruse to obtain confes- incarceration

tinued incriminating Did statements?

sion or was he offered

relator have stage? Was he advised rights and, so, if how

his constitutional status

and when? What

investigation? testimony be- Was Jury?

ing to a Grand submitted many ques- other to these

answers necessary before a determina- are

tions parties can both be made. fair to

tion appealed from is

The order reversed for a remanded ease

and the facts circumstances relat- all the

ing detention and the state- to relator’s during period.

ments obtained powers

“Pursuant to the inherent failure appear at counsel to pre-trial, which was scheduled for today, 12, 1960, at 1:00 o’clock, pursuant notice, under having Rule give good reason sufficient appearing pre-trial, for not at said the cause is now dismissed.” history litigation The of this is reveal- ed appeal. the record before inus August 24, 1954, plaintiff On William complaint Link filed his in the district against defendant Wabash Company damages Railroad to recover alleged injuries to have been sustain- ed him when he drove automobile into a collision with defendant’s train standing highway across Indiana. September ‍‌‌​​​​‌​‌​‌​‌‌‌​​​​​​​​​‌‌​​​‌​‌‌​‌‌​​‌‌‌​​‌‌​​‌‍17, 1954, On defendant peared and filed its answer the com- plaint. April 30, 1955, On defendant filed its judgment pleadings. motion for on the 18, 1955, hearing On October was had on this motion. On November district court mo- defendant’s judgment pleadings tion for ordered the cause dismissed. From this plaintiff appealed. order of dismissal Jay Darlington, Hammond, Ind., E. 10, 1956, On October our court reversed appellant. and remanded the case for trial. Link v. Company, Cir., 1956, Wabash Railroad George Lafayette, Bodle, Ind., John F. certiorari denied 352 U.S. (Stuart, Schilling, Lafayette, Ind. T. (Feb- 1 L.Ed.2d 548 Schilling, Lafayette, Branigin, Ricks & ruary 25, 1957). On March Ind., counsel), defendant-appellee. mandate this court was filed HASTINGS, Judge, Chief Before in the district cоurt. ENOCH, Cir- SCHNACKENBERG Subsequently, the trial court set the Judges. cuit July 17, for trial for 1957. On June on motion of Judge. HASTINGS, Chief objecting, the trial date of by plaintiff appeal This is an from an July 17, vacated; 1957was and the cause of the district entered Octo- continued. dismissing 12, cause ber August On defendant filed for failure action interrogatories to answer. appear in for a confer- on scheduled that date. ence February 24, 1959, the trial gave appealed reads: own initiative notice to 11,1 Rule from 28 parties, pursuant to Local derived U.S.C.A. Procedure, March be would dismissed provides: other- ordered “ * * * wise. provided eases not all by rule, may an- 24, 1959, plaintiff filed for regulate the district courts March On interrogatoriеs. any practice man- in to defendant’s swers ner not with inconsistent these 25,1959, had On March rules.” 4, order, June and on show cause retaining 12, 1960, On October at 1:00 an order o’clock the trial court entered setting m., p. the time con- docket and fixed case on the ference, judge July 22, the district called this case trial for pre-trial hearing. Defendant’s coun- July mo- defendant’s On sel was in court. Plaintiff’s agreed, tion, to p. m., appear. did At 3:00 vacated; July 22, 1959 was date of having appeared, counsel not the case was continued. foregoing the district court entered the ad- filed March On order of dismissal. interrogatories plaintiff to ditional transcript proceedings April 15, after an On аnswer. preceding entry in court of the order by the trial of time extension following of dismissal reveals the fac- court, the ad- to filed answers disputed by tual situation which is not interrogatories. ditional plaintiff. 1960, pursuant September 29, to secretary judge's The district March effective Local Rule by requested called into court notice to be the district caused court to parties make a statement. She sched- said mailed counsel for both to that she uling mailed notice of the this September 12, 1960, conference to all counsel on in court on October to be held gave following report p. She o’clock m. at 1:00 to the court: undisputed for both that counsel It is [plаintiff’s “He called pre- counsel] notice of received this Wednesday, about 10:45 [on undisputed conference. 12, 1960], and said he inwas Indian- the times in 12 was in force at Local Rule apolis- busy preparing he was adopted pursuant to an —that question papers to file with the [Indiana] district court. Supreme Court. He said he wasn’t provides: Rulе Local actually engaged argument hold “The that he couldn’t be here 1:00 civil case conferences o’clock,but he would be here either given par- all counsel for notice Thursday afternoon or time Fri- ties.” day if it could be reset. procedure authorized “At first he you, Pre-trial asked talk to you 16, Federal bench, Procе- were Rule dure, and he making convey U.S.C.A. Local rule then asked if I could this generally you. in the district court is prosecution judgment 11 of Dis Rule the United States with 1. Local for costs after thirty days given by District of Indi Northern trict notice the clerk to September (now attorneys ana, unless, good effective of record 1, 1860) shown, Rule effective March Local orders other See, Darlington wise.” reads: Studebaker- Corporation, because of civil cases Packard “Dismissal prosecution. denied, in which cases lack of Civil certiorari 359 U.S. period action has been taken for a 3 L.Ed.2d 980. year may want be dismissed for one by any ‘pre- of the court but had contacted if he “I asked him ” counsel], trial notice’ sent to counsel. We Bodle [defendant’s Mr. think yesterday, and he contention is merit. without he said he had pursuant there, The “notice” and I don’t was sent Local he couldn’t said be know, Rule course, meant for the district court. Local if he promulgated deposition.” 12 had been order of or for Certainly pur- the court. a notice sent told she She stated that suant to an order of court embodied message convey counsel she would in a court rule should have does and all opposing She the court and the force and effect of an order of the reported the oldest also this was Further, plaintiff court. has not cited fur- It docket. civil case on the court any authority requiring that a and appeared the first ther that this was by specific conference be scheduled only the attempt have counsel made to give validity. It is ‍‌‌​​​​‌​‌​‌​‌‌‌​​​​​​​​​‌‌​​​‌​‌‌​‌‌​​‌‌‌​​‌‌​​‌‍well pre-trial conference continued. settled that court rules of have the force dis- to the Defendant’s stated Neary, 1929, 160, law. Weil v. 278 U.S. plaintiff’s trict court at time that 169, 144, 49 S.Ct. 73 L.Ed. 243. preceding morn- counsel called him on the ing 1960) (October 11, Indian- argues Plaintiff that there was apolis expected to be that he and stated no motion defendant for dismissal. did not in court for the Since the trial base dis court did not its taking the know he attend 11, whether would supra, missal on or Local Rule deposition for the of a set 41(b), Federal Rules Civil Pro day. cedure, He further stated counsel next prosecution, for want of no such doing “he some work on some quite said required. motion was It is clear to papers.” said that the extent of He ample us that district author courts the ity “regulate his contact with him “since the time practice their pretrial,” Court sent out its notice manner not inconsistent the Fed with” September SO, received Procedure, pro eral Rules Civil as secretary He a call from the 83, supra. in Rule vided This comes message judge reporting the tele- purview district phoned within the of that rule. hearing day to her on Plaintiff maintains that Local Indianapolis plaintiff’s 12, providing supra, Rule conferences, judge his- then reviewed the calling no contains sanctions tory litigation pointed of this out dismissal, otherwise, or that in that had notice provision of a absence for such sanc hearing hearing, did not for the tions the trial court erred. sheer and had failed to indicate “reason- argue sophistry to that appearing. able reason” for not In view power inherent to enforce its surrounding of all the circumstances rules, procedures and to orders or im case, action in counsel’s the trial pose appropriate sanctions for failure to court concluded that it should “exercise comply. The are all to the authorities рower its inherent dismiss action” contrary. “failure counsel to Darlington In v. Studebaker-Packard * * * pear at a counsel hav- Cir., Corporation, 903, 1959, 7 261 F.2d ing give any good and sufficient 905, denied, 992, certiorari 359 U.S. 79 appearing reason for the said 1121, up- 3 S.Ct. L.Ed.2d where we pretrial.” The case was then dismissed. of a dismissal cause under an- (for Plaintiff first prosecu- сontends that other local rule want of “ * * * tion), the dismissal was erroneous because we said that it within nothing was scheduled for power on inherent to so court’s dismiss except 1960 authority con an action without of statute citing and that rule,” Moving ference this “had not been set or Hicks v. Bekins 546 promulgated 16 and Storage under Rules Co., 9 & Procedure, general inherent Civil 408, 409. On the designed to as sanc- said the local rule “was an action of a to dismiss order, promote expeditious processing of of a tion for disobedience litigation civil “But Annotation, A.L.R.2d see firmly imposed appropriate are sanctions in exercise Courts flagrant the court for disobedience powers invoke herent orders, salutary purpose [the involving disre a sanction gard situations entirely frustrated local will be rule] orders, set rules litigation progress this district Coop, tings. Hydro Electric First Iowa hopelessly impeded.” Co., 8 & Electric v. Iowa-Illinois Gas certiorari Cir., F.2d argues Plaintiff there was L. denied, S.Ct. U.S. showing inability adequate of his Forge Lansing Drop 76; Ed.2d Refior pre-trial con counsel to be at the 440, 444, cer Co., Cir., 1942, disagree. ference. His brief refutes We denied, U.S. tiorari states, “Plain this contention wherein he recent 86 L.Ed. previously en tiff’s counsel has become Cir., DuComb, 7 case of Jameson v. gaged important in in the matter upheld a dis this court 275 F.2d argu Supreme Court, Indiana not oral of the failure оf missal because urgent preparing papers ment of date the trial on the to be at kind, required in him to be previously the The court trial. set Indianapolis. happens in As often law the of on discretion there found no abuse longer work, expected, the task took than part As the court the trial court. of day occupied it so that the Refior, supra, 124 at pointed F.2d out in been ‍‌‌​​​​‌​‌​‌​‌‌‌​​​​​​​​​‌‌​​​‌​‌‌​‌‌​​‌‌‌​​‌‌​​‌‍set for this duty litigant 444, “Every page the to knowledge the time With -of the comply of the reasonable orders with place pre-trial hearing, plain- the of compliance and, if is court such complete to out-of- tiff’s counsel chose forthcoming, to has the court the work the cоurt court and called district apply penalty of See the dismissal.” opinion, In our and so advised it. Company, also, Joseph Norton D.C. v. legitimate far short ex- of falls S.D.N.Y.1959, 2 affirmed 24 F.R.D. failing to the cuse court at fixed. time im dismissal has been The sanction of comply

posed with to for failure that the Plaintiff contends sanction of Pittsburgh settings. Dalrymple Con unnеcessarily dismissal harsh. In oral is Company, Coal D.C.W.D.Pa. solidation argument his counsel the conceded that 260; v. Texas 24 F.R.D. Wisdom might disciplined district him Co., D.C.N.D.Ala.1939, F.Supp. 992. 27 Many by imposing a lesser sanction. of ap Wisdom, supra, In cases herein cited demonstrate that the hearing; pear the the degree of the the character or sanction is case, on motion of court dismissed defendant, the discretion of within court. prosecute ac for failure Under the circumstances this case comply and for failure with tion part find no of discretion we abuse Procedure, pur Federal Rules dismissing trial court in the action. 41(b) In 5 to Rule of such rules. suant argument, Practice, Finally, p. note in oral Mоore’s urged (2d ed.), client it said that dismissal should not is regarded made suffer a “could also be as a be dismissal because Wisdom comply counsel’s failure in dismissal for failure with an this matter. ** Dalrym answer to this is that the action short order of ple, supra, page 262, part of action F.R.D. at lack is noted rule client. that its local 56, p. an in- procеdure C.J.S. Dismissal has become and Nonsuit Pre-trial § tegrated judicial process already part 403. We had held in Link v. Co., Cir., free Wabash R. R. must be level. Courts op- complaint that his use it and and enforce to control stated a cause of ac- orderly Otherwise, admin- tion and we eration. had remanded the case to justice from the removed district istration will be trial. The United placed Supreme certiorari, in States control of the trial Court denied not believe U.S. of counsel. We do L.Ed.2d hands S.Ct. contemplation such a course within the is of the law. Defendant’s counsel no effort to makes We find no error in the dismissal rely upon prosecution want this cause court. district ground involuntary dismissal. appealed from is af- Obviously position firmed. contention, to make such a inasmuch as it caused

Affirmed. the district court to vacate the setting July the case for trial on Judge SCHNACKENBERG, Circuit and continue the case. Even if (dissenting). so, it had not done clear that its ac- quiescence delay in the would bar a dis- my pronounce- I take as tеxt this 1952 missal of case for want Supreme ment Court of New Jer- prosecution. 27 C.J.S. Dismissal sey: 65(3), p. Nonsuit party’s “The dismissal Therefore, there exists no basis action drastic is sustaining except dismissal order should not be invoked in those plaintiff appealed, party is where the of the actions cases shown that there a has been disobediencе show a deliberate and contumacious by plaintiff disregard authority. a order. 27 C.J.S. of the court’s * * * 59, p. Dismissal Nonsuit plain- It seems us that showing, because, first, There is no such tiff’s conduct here did not warrant commanding there plaintiff was punishment, particularly such severe anything possibility do and hence no that view fact the defend- and, secondly, disobediеnt, ant would have suffered no loss a plaintiff there is no evidence adjournment that further short any knowledge proceed- very might even had well have been ings which the trial court described terms. “ * * * exercise of “its inherent to dis- But exist for the courts upon plain- miss this action” “failure of purpose rendering justice sole be- pretrial tiff’s counsel at a according tween to law. # * *» expedition While the of business and the full utilization is time unnecessary It to discuss the ra- highly desired, duty to be holding pretrial tionale that a administering justice in each indi- called was in accordance with sight vidual case must not be lost and that rules counsel did not ” paramount objective. as their appear. Certainly suggestion there is no (Italics Allegro supplied). v. Afton was ever ordered or even Village Corp., 9 N.J. 87 A.2d requested appear at such a conference.

430, 432. requested His counsel was to do so and case there appear because, was an absence of not did as he informed grounds involuntary judge’s secretary, еngaged the usual for the activity a For suit. instance ‍‌‌​​​​‌​‌​‌​‌‌‌​​​​​​​​​‌‌​​​‌​‌‌​‌‌​​‌‌‌​​‌‌​​‌‍there in connection with business plain- Supreme cannot be serious contention that the Indiana before at fictitious, requested delay tiff’s suit or was vexatious 27 which time he of a '548 mes- This

.day conference. two RATIGAN, Appellee, Francis T. judge. sage conveyed to the v. plaintiff’s counsеl appears that further CO., CENTRAL RAILROAD NEW YORK informed defendant’s had Appellant, In- morning at absence of his preceding dianapolis. COMMODITIES,INC., INTERSTATE showing dismissed Appellee,

plaintiff’s case. Company, Troy Union Railroad proposition that If one accedes to Appellee-Appellant. despite his commit- counsel, No. Docket 26217. been Indianapolis, should ment Appeals States Court of United conference, at the in attendance Second Circuit. the conference absence Argued April 13, 1961. him amenable made inexcusable court, it discipline officer as an Decided June bridge gap logically impossible to disciplinary inflict and to upon at- than his client rather plain- torney. of action personal permanent serious and tiff for earnings injuries has been loss dismissed, of the court the action plain- violation of alleged dereliction tiff, for an lawyer out to the who was han- could entrust to whom he as one courts. in the federal dling attorney that the remembered

It must be years practicing in both been and this court district court

peals. inflicted a has аffirmed now injured injury upon man and an serious family, are innocent of who action,

wrongdoing. cause of Plaintiff’s

bearing approval stamp

court, property. been was his court, punish destroyed.1 The district prop- lawyer, another’s ‍‌‌​​​​‌​‌​‌​‌‌‌​​​​​​​​​‌‌​​​‌​‌‌​‌‌​​‌‌‌​​‌‌​​‌‍has confiscated law, erty process of of- without A district the constitution.

fends authority disciplinary over lack

does justification, attorney and there is legal, of an for its

moral litigant personal conduct

innocent Because neither

necessary proper to visit sin of nor client, lawyer upon I would re-

verse. 41(b).

1. 28 U.S.C.A. rule

Case Details

Case Name: William Link v. Wabash Railroad Company

Court Name: Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit

Date Published: Jun 29, 1961

Citation: 291 F.2d 542

Docket Number: 13221_1

Court Abbreviation: 7th Cir.