Document: 342 U.S. 512 72 S.Ct. 410 96 L.Ed. 534 BLACKMARv.GUERRE et al. No. 361. Argued Jan. 30, 31, 1952. Decided March 3, Mr. Rene R. Nicaud, New Orleans, La., for petitioner. Benjamin Forman, respondent. Justice MINTON delivered the opinion of Court. 1 Petitioner, a veteran employed as authorization officer in Regional Office Veterans' Administration was removed from his position. He appealed under § 14 Preference Act 1944, 5 U.S.C. (Supp. IV) 863, U.S.C.A. to Tenth United States Civil Service Commission Orleans. The Board found that discharge not warranted and recommended he be reinstated Appeals Review Washington. reversed so notified 2 Petitioner then instituted this suit District Court Eastern Louisiana, naming defendants Guerre, Manager Administration, who had first discharged him, Commission. Guerre served personally. on sought through personal service Weinstein, Attorney, Leach, Director Region. Both Weinstein Leach resided within Louisiana. by registered mail made Columbia upon Attorney General 3 prayed judgment setting aside annulling action confirming Guerre's action, declaring 'plaintiff is entitled an order directing * restore plaintiff aforesaid position' with back pay. Respondents appeared filed motion dismiss because improper venue lack jurisdiction. After overruled, respondents answer raising, among other things, same issues. On motions both parties summary judgment, court sustained respondents, holding it lacked jurisdiction over persons Commissioners, were residents Louisiana indispensable parties. affirmed ground there no Court, without prejudice further proceedings petitioner proper venue. Cir., 190 F.2d 427. We granted certiorari. 884, 176, —-. 4 do reach merits proceeding. are met at threshold challenge entertain action. These defenses law fact properly presented manner. Fed.Rules Civ.Proc. rule 12(b), 28 If could sued eo nomine, we would confronted question whether here sufficient bring into court; but Congress has constituted body corporate or authorized nomine. 6 It suggested such given Hatch Act.1 Not so. While 118k(c) does provide state employee have violated 118k(b) may obtain review district which resides, new proceeding against only transfer case Court—a continuation before another tribunal. petition notice Commission, directed file transcript record reviews old record, right hear evidence. Even limited afforded federal employees 118i. Thus, stretch imagination can deemed present When authorizes one its agencies explicit language, impliedly agency offspring suable entity. See Keifer & v. Reconstruction Finance Corporation, 306 381, 390, 59 516, 518, 83 784. 7 Since entity sued, involving generally must brought individual Commissioners members No here, individuals comprising Therefore, neither nor 8 until court. defendant Guerre. him all right, obvious relief him. 9 judicial Administrative Procedure Act, 1001 seq., seq. Certainly specific Still less implied waiver governmental immunity suit. Commission's reviewable 1009,2 'competent jurisdiction.' Assuming, deciding, 1009, follow where served. held anywhere functioning they served, 1009 aid courts jurisdiction' 10 never entity, follows and, pointed out, possibly these proceedings, affirmed. 11 Affirmed. 12 BLACK dissents. 53 Stat. 1147, amended, 54 767, 12(c), 118k(c), 118k(c). '§ 1009. Judicial 'Except far (1) statutes preclude (2) committed discretion. '(a) Right review. 'Any person suffering legal wrong any adversely affected aggrieved meaning relevant statute, shall thereof. '(b) Form proceedings. 'The form special statutory subject matter specified statute or, absence inadequacy thereof, applicable competent *'

Category: 8