Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

220 F.2d 383

Docket No. 12196.

Benenati v. Young

District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals

Argued Feb. 28, 1955.

Decided March 10, 1955.

District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals · decided 1955-03-10

Cited by 26 later decisions — most recently November 1963 · most notably Green v. Baughman (1957), MacArthur Liquors, Inc. v. Palisades Citizens Association, Incorporated, Palisades Citizens Association, Incorporated v. Frank E. Weakly, Members of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Board of the District of Columbia, and MacArthur Liquors, Inc., a Corporation, (Two Cases). Frank E. Weakly, Members of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Board of the District of Columbia v. Palisades Citizens Association, Inc. (1959)

18 federal appellate ·

2 counsel of record

Relies on Blackmar v. Guerre · Bailey v. Richardson · Bailey v. Richardson

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Opinion by (per_curiam) · Decided 1955-03-10

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1Mr. Carl L. Shipley, Washington, D. C., for appellant.

¶2Mr. Joseph A. Rafferty, Asst. U. S. Atty., with whom Messrs. Leo A. Rover, U. S. Atty., and Lewis Carroll, Asst. U. S. Atty., were on the brief, for appellees. Mr. Samuel J. L’Hommedieu, Jr., Asst. U. S. Atty., also entered an appearance for appellees.

¶3Before WILBUR K. MILLER, DANAHER and BASTIAN, Circuit Judges.

¶4PER CURIAM.

¶5Pursuant to charges preferred by the District Director of the Immigration and Naturalization Service, which were finally sustained by the Civil Service Commission after initial and intermediate administrative consideration, the appellant was dismissed from his position as a security officer at Ellis Island, New York.

¶6He sued in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia for a declaration that he was dismissed “in violation of his statutory and constitutional rights.” The Commissioner of Immigration and Naturalization and the Chairman of the Civil Service Commission were the only defendants. On their motion, the District Court dismissed for two,reasons: (a) failure to join as defendants the remaining members of the Civil Service Commission, who were nec*384essary and indispensable parties; and (b) failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. This appeal is from the order of dismissal.

¶7The other members of the Civil Service Commission were, as the district judge held, necessary and indispensable parties. Blackmar v. Guerre, 1952, 342 U.S. 512, 72 S.Ct. 410, 96 L.Ed. 534. Courts will not review the action of executive officials in dismissing executive employees, except to insure compliance with statutory requirements. Bailey v. Richardson, 1950, 86 U.S.App.D.C. 248, 266, 182 F.2d 46, 64, affirmed, 1951, 341 U.S. 918, 71 S.Ct. 669, 95 L.Ed. 1352. There was such compliance here. It follows that the District Court was correct in ordering dismissal.

¶8Affirmed.

/220/f2d/383 · .json · Public domain