Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

281 F.2d 789

Docket No. 17852.

Ball v. Yarborough

Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals

Decided Aug. 30, 1960.

Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals · decided 1960-08-30

2 counsel of record

Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (Class Action Fairness Act of 2005) · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))

Relies on Hague v. Committee for Industrial Organization · Snowden v. Hughes · Joslin Mfg Co v. City of Providence

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Opinion by (per_curiam) · Decided 1960-08-30

How this case has been cited

Cited by 7 later decisions — most recently December 1982

1 federal appellate ·

40196019701980decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1*790Robert L. Cork, Valdosta, Ga., for appellant.

¶2W. Dexter Douglass, Tallahassee, Fla., Bryon Butler, John S. Burton, Perry, Fla., for appellees.

¶3Before CAMERON, JONES and BROWN, Circuit Judges.

¶4PER CURIAM.

¶5This appeal by Billy Ball, plaintiff below, is from a dismissal for want of jurisdiction of his complaint as amended, charging appellees, defendants below, with a conspiracy which prevented him from enjoying his federal rights as guaranteed by 42 U.S.C.A. §§ 1981-1985. The court first dismissed the complaint and permitted appellant to amend and then dismissed the complaint as amended. The sole question presented is whether the complaint, as amended, stated a violation of appellant’s “Civil Rights” as guaranteed to him by “the Federal Law and by the Statutes.”

¶6Appellant instituted this action against the appellees, Joe Yarborough, as an individual and as President of the City Council of Perry, Florida, and the Moye Construction Company, seeking to recover damages in the amount of $4,-077.50 allegedly sustained when the ap-pellees conspired to terminate appellant’s employment by appellee Moye in violation of his federally guaranteed rights. It was alleged that appellee Yarborough was acting under color of office and color of authority of the City Council of Perry, Florida at the time he entered into the conspiracy with the officers of Moye to have appellant discharged from Moye’s employment subsequent to, and by reason of, his appearance in court as a witness against the chief of police of Perry, Florida. It was further alleged that Yarborough had threatened to procure the discharge of appellant if he did so testify.

¶7The court below heard the complaint, as amended, and entered an order dismissing it because the facts alleged did not sustain federal jurisdiction.1

¶8We think the ease was correcly decided by the district court and that decision is controlled by cases decided by this Court, e. g., Deloach v. Rogers, 1959, 268 F.2d 928, and Simmons v. Whitaker,2*7911958, 252 F.2d 224, and the large number of eases discussed and cited in those two. And we think that the cases from this Court are in line with the decisions of the Supreme Court of which Snowden v. Hughes, 1943, 321 U.S. 1, 64 S.Ct. 397, 88 L.Ed. 497, is an example. The judgment of the lower court is, therefore,

¶9Affirmed.

¶10JOHN R. BROWN, Circuit Judge, concurs in the result.

/281/f2d/789 · .json · Public domain