Source: https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/596/252/447106/
Timestamp: 2019-10-14 13:23:14
Document Index: 651816464

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1343', '§ 1983', '§ 1343', '§ 1983', '§ 1346', '§ 1346', '§ 1331']

Emmett M. Clark et al., Plaintiffs-appellants, v. United States of America, Defendant-appellee, 596 F.2d 252 (7th Cir. 1979) :: Justia
Justia › US Law › Case Law › Federal Courts › Courts of Appeals › Seventh Circuit › 1979 › Emmett M. Clark et al., Plaintiffs-appellants, v. United States of America, Defendant-appellee
Emmett M. Clark et al., Plaintiffs-appellants, v. United States of America, Defendant-appellee, 596 F.2d 252 (7th Cir. 1979)
US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit - 596 F.2d 252 (7th Cir. 1979) Heard Jan. 24, 1979. Decided April 19, 1979
Jurisdiction was rested on 28 U.S.C. § 1343(3) which grants district courts jurisdiction of civil actions to redress the deprivation "under color of any State law" of any right, privilege or immunity secured by the Constitution of the United States. To buttress jurisdiction the complaint also relies on 42 U.S.C. § 1983 which provides a civil action for deprivation of rights "under color of any statute * * * of any State." As Judge Will held in his memorandum opinion, 28 U.S.C. § 1343(3) and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 confer federal jurisdiction only regarding actions committed under color of state law, and this lawsuit does not involve any such action. However, the district judge held that "federal question" jurisdiction did lie under Section 1331(a) which gives the district courts jurisdiction of civil actions where the matter in controversy exceeds $10,000 and arises under the Constitution, laws or treaties of the United States. Clark v. United States, 447 F. Supp. 172, 174 (N.D. Ill. 1978). We disagree that Section 1331(a) conferred district court jurisdiction of this action because plaintiffs are seeking retroactive and future additions to their pensions from the United States in excess of $10,000. Such a suit is subject to the defense of sovereign immunity1 unless brought in the Court of Claims under the Tucker Act (28 U.S.C. §§ 1346 and 1491).
To hold, as (they ask), that the joining of declaratory or injunctive relief with (their) damage claim is sustainable on the jurisdictional base of Section 1331, would expand the jurisdiction of the district courts beyond that which we think Congress intended. Indeed, in such a case as (this), to hold for (plaintiffs) would make the jurisdiction of the district court coextensive with the Court of Claims. The Tucker Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1346(a) (2), again in terms, limits the jurisdiction of the district courts on account of such claims to the maximum amount of $10,000.00, which we are without power to extend. 582 F.2d at 878.
See E. g., Larson v. Domestic and Foreign Commerce Corp., 337 U.S. 682, 689, 69 S. Ct. 1457, 93 L. Ed. 1628. A 1976 amendment to 28 U.S.C. § 1331(a) providing that "no such sum or value (exceeding $10,000) shall be required in any such action brought against the United States, any agency thereof, or any officer or employee thereof in his official capacity" only withdraws the defense of sovereign immunity in actions seeking relief other than money damages. See 5 U.S. Code Congressional & Administrative News, 94th Cong., 2d sess. (1976) pp. 6121, 6124, 6125, 6140
Such a suit is of course within the jurisdiction of the Court of Claims even though it does not have authority to issue declaratory judgments. United States v. Testan, 424 U.S. 392, 398, 400, 402, 96 S. Ct. 948, 47 L. Ed. 2d 114
Inter alia, the district court had held that these federal pension statutes were not unconstitutional as a denial of equal protection under the Fifth Amendment. 447 F. Supp. at 178