Case ID: f-supp_182/html/0724-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "THOMSEN, Chief Judge.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

COMMERCIAL SAVINGS & LOAN ASSOCIATION, INC., a body corporate of the State of Maryland v. Alton J. MURRAY, individually and as a United States Postal Inspector and Keith Moyer, Individually and as a United States Postal Inspector.
    Civ. No. 10885.
    United States District Court D. Maryland.
    April 11, 1960.
    
      J. Thomas Ellicott and Turnbull, Brewster, Boone, Maguire & Brennan, Towson, Md., for plaintiff.
    Leon H. A. Pierson and Arnold M. Weiner, Baltimore, Md., for defendants.
   THOMSEN, Chief Judge.

This is an action for $2,500,000 filed against two postal inspectors on the same day plaintiff was indicted for mail fraud by the Grand Jury of this District. Defendants have moved to dismiss on several grounds.

This is not an action against the United States. The court will take jurisdiction to determine whether the complaint alleges any acts by the defendants for which the law makes them personally liable in tort. Larson v. Domestic and Foreign Commerce Corp., 337 U.S. 682, 686, 69 S.Ct. 1457, 93 L.Ed. 1628.

But it is clear that the complaint does not state a claim against defendants upon which relief can be granted. The acts of defendants alleged in the complaint were within the scope of their duties as postal inspectors, and they are immune from civil liability therefor. Yaselli v. Goff, 2 Cir., 12 F.2d 396, 56 A.L.R. 1239, affirmed per curiam, 275 U.S. 503, 48 S.Ct. 155, 72 L.Ed. 395; Cooper v. O’Connor, 69 App.D.C. 100, 99 F.2d 135, 139, 118 A.L.R. 1440; Spalding v. Vilas, 161 U.S. 483, 498, 16 S.Ct. 631, 40 L.Ed. 780; Barr v. Matteo, 360 U.S. 564, 572, 79 S.Ct. 1335, 3 L.Ed.2d 1434; Gregoire v. Biddle, 2 Cir., 177 F.2d 579; O’Campo v. Hardisty, 9 Cir., 262 F.2d 621, 624; 5 U.S.C.A. §§ 361, 22; 39 U.S.C.A. § 692; 5 U.S.C.A. § 369; Reorganization Plan # 3, 1949, P.O.Dept., § 1(b), 5 U.S.C.A. § 369 note; 39 C.F.R. 4.2(a); Postal Manual, 1956, §§ 811.6, 822.1, 822.11.

The motion to dismiss the complaint is hereby granted.