Opinion ID: 260239
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The action may be maintained under 42 U.S.C.A. 1985(3).

Text: 12 Clearly, the present weight of authority is that in order for 1985(3) to serve as the basis for a cause of action for damages, at least some of the persons conspiring must be acting under color of state law. Such an allegation is wholly lacking in the plaintiff's complaint. At most it can only be said that the plaintiff alleges that the acts complained of were committed by the defendants, either as federal officials under color of federal law, or acting as individuals beyond the scope of their official authority. Neither claim is a sufficient basis for action under 42 U.S.C.A. 1985(3). 13 III. The third basis upon which appellant asserts the right to maintain this action is pursuant to the Universal Military Training and Service Act. 14 Although appellant fails to designate any specific language of the act giving the United States District Court jurisdiction of this type of action, he contends that the fact that he is subjected to the provisions of the act would have entitled him to maintain an action in federal court for any abuse claimed to arise as the result of the administration of the act. No provision of the act supports appellant's contention. 15 Federal courts being courts of limited jurisdiction, authority to entertain actions cannot be conjured out of thin air, but must be expressly or impliedly granted by an act of Congress. 16 Appellant contends that authority for maintaining this action is to be found in Townsend v. Zimmerman, 6 Cir., 237 F.2d 376, but this is not so. In the Townsend case the selective service registrant sought an injunction to prevent his induction into military service until such time as his appeal was considered by the proper board of appeals. The maintenance of such an action cannot serve as the basis for jurisdiction to entertain an action for damages. 17 In passing, it might be observed that if the petitioner had invoked the remedy in the Townsend case, he could have materially allayed his apprehension during the protracted period of time involved in processing his appeal. 18 It appearing that such action was correct, the order of the District Court dismissing plaintiff's complaint against the defendant, Rudolph Zuieback, and against all of the other named defendants, is hereby affirmed.