Source: https://casetext.com/case/monks-v-hetherington
Timestamp: 2019-02-23 05:03:09
Document Index: 399057136

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1983', '§ 1447', '§ 2201', '§ 1331', '§ 1343', '§ 1343', '§ 1343', '§ 3573']

Monks v. Hetherington, 573 F.2d 1164 | Casetext
Monks v. Hetherington
573 F.2d 1164 (10th Cir. 1978)
Monksv.Hetherington
United States Court of Appeals, Tenth CircuitMar 30, 1978
…This is notable because as we have explained in a previous, unpublished decision, a plaintiff&apos;s failure to…
Robles v. State Farm Ins.
…According to him, defendants acted under color of state law because Moreno&apos;s failure to provide proof of…
noting that, when "[t]here is no demonstration of state action [there is,] no basis for civil rights jurisdiction" under § 1983"
Summary of this case from Daniels v. 7-11 Convenience Store
Robert D. Nelon and Roy J. Davis of Andrews, Mosburg, Davis, Elam, Legg Bixler, Inc., Oklahoma City, Okl., and John R. Cain, Oklahoma City, Okl., for plaintiffs-appellants.
On June 30, 1975, Vicki Monks broadcast certain allegedly false and defamatory statements concerning the defendant-appellee, Clark Hetherington, over the Channel 9 station in Oklahoma City. Hetherington demanded a retraction pursuant to the above-mentioned Oklahoma statute, Okla. Stat. Title 12 § 1447.5 (1971). Vicki Monks and Griffin Television, Inc. then filed a declaratory action pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. §§ 2201- 2202 (1959 Supp. 1977). In their complaint the plaintiffs sought declaratory judgment that under the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States and applicable federal statutes, they could not be required to retract the statements which they had broadcast.
Soon after the declaratory action was filed, Hetherington brought an action in state court seeking damages for defamation. Thereupon, Ms. Monks and Griffin Television, Inc. removed the action to the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma, but on Hetherington's motion the libel suit was remanded to state court because of lack of federal jurisdiction. See Hetherington v. Griffin Television, Inc., 430 F. Supp. 493 (W.D.Okl. 1977). On the same day the motion of Hetherington to dismiss the declaratory judgment complaint was granted for lack of jurisdiction. Monks v. Hetherington, 430 F. Supp. 491 (W.D.Okl. 1977).
As noted, the issue to be determined is whether the federal court had jurisdiction over the subject matter of the declaratory judgment action. The alleged jurisdictional basis for the declaratory judgment action appearing on the face of the complaint was 28 U.S.C.A. § 1331(a) (Supp. 1977) and 28 U.S.C. § 1343(3) (1970). Section 1331(a) declares that:
The complaint also invokes the First Amendment as a basis for jurisdiction. The underlying controversy here is the defamation action. This, of course, arises under state law and plainly there is no federal jurisdiction as to this. The fact that the defendants in that action, Vicki Monks and Griffin Television, Inc., seek to advance the First Amendment as a defense does not constitute a basis for federal jurisdiction, for it is fundamental that anticipation of a defense cannot confer jurisdiction. The likelihood or even probability that a defense based on federal jurisdiction will arise in an action does not satisfy the requirement that federal jurisdiction be described in the plaintiff's complaint. See Gully v. First National Bank, 299 U.S. 109, 57 S.Ct. 96, 81 L.Ed. 70 (1936); Louisville Nashville Railroad v. Mottley, 211 U.S. 149, 29 S.Ct. 42, 53 L.Ed. 126 (1908).
The plaintiff's reliance on 28 U.S.C. § 1343(3) (1970), which furnishes a remedy for federal civil rights violations under color of state law, is also lacking in merit because § 1343(3) does not add to federal jurisdiction except in cases in which less than $10,000 is in controversy. See Lynch v. Household Finance Corp., 405 U.S. 538, 546-52, 92 S.Ct. 1113, 31 L.Ed.2d 424 (1972); 13 C. Wright, A. Miller E. Cooper, Federal Practice and Procedure § 3573, at 500 (1975). Also, this section is limited to cases involving state action, which means deprivation of right by a state officer under the authority or pretended authority of state law. See Winterhalter v. Three Rivers Motors Co., 312 F. Supp. 962, 963 (W.D. Pa. 1970). There is no demonstration of state action and, therefore, no basis for civil rights jurisdiction in the case at bar.