Document: 395 U.S. 402 89 S.Ct. 1813 23 L.Ed.2d 396 John T. WILLINGHAM and C. A. Jarvis, Petitioners,v.Daniel MORGAN. No. 228. Argued April 22, 1969. Decided June 9. Francis X. Beytagh, Jr., Cleveland, Ohio, for petitioners. Joseph M. Snee, Austin, Tex., respondent. Mr. Justice MARSHALL delivered the opinion of Court. 1 This case raises some important questions about power federal officials to have actions brought against them removed courts Petitioners Willingham Jarvis are, respectively, warden chief medical officer at United States Penitentiary Leavenworth, Kansas. Respondent Morgan was a prisoner penitentiary time he filed this suit in Leavenworth County District He alleged his complaint that petitioners other, anonymous, defendants had on numerous occasions inoculated him with 'a deleterious foreign substance' assaulted, beaten, tortured various ways, great injury. asked total $3,285,000 damages from alone, plus other amounts unnamed defendants. petition removal action Court Kansas, alleging anything they may done respondent 'was made by course their duties as officers America * under color such offices *.' invoked 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1), which allows any civil '(a)ny act office *.'1 The Federal Judge denied respondent's motion remand state granted summary judgment petitioners, holding recovery barred official immunity doctrine Barr v. Matteo, 360 564, 79 1335, 3 1434 (1959). Thereafter, perfected an appeal Appeals Tenth Circuit. That court found it unnecessary decide question, insufficient basis record support Court's refusal courts. 383 F.2d 139 (1967). reversed remanded further proceedings. Upon Solicitor General's petition, we certiorari consider whether decided question erroneously.2 393 976, 441, 21 437 (1968). We reverse. I. 2 below held 'color office' test 1442(a)(1) 'provides rather limited removal.' F.2d, 141. It noted might well supported finding were protected damage doctrine. But 'much narrower' than immunity, 142, accordingly litigate defense Government contends turns statute its head. argues is incident supremacy, one purposes provide forum cases where must raise defenses arising duties. On view, should be broader, not narrower, immunity. agree. has long history. See H. Hart & Wechsler, Courts System 1147—1150 (1953). firsts uch provision included 1815 customs statute. Act February 4, 1815, 8, Stat. 198. part attempt enforce embargo trade England over opposition New Englant States, War 1812 quite unpopular. allowed involved enforcement remove or prosecution commenced because 'under colour' Obviously, protect interference hostile not, however, permanent; terms expire end war. periods national stress spawned similar enactments. South Carolina's threats nullification 1833 led passage so-called Force Bill, all suits prosecutions acts laws. March 2, 1833, 3, 4 633. A new group statutes came Civil War, eventually codified into permanent applied mainly growing out revenue Rev.Stat. 643 (1874); Judicial Code 1911, 33, 36 1097. Finally, Congress extended cover when passed current 1948. H.R.Rep.No.308, 80th Cong., 1st Sess., A134 (1947). purpose these enactments hard discern. As said nearly 90 years ago Tennessee Davis, 100 257, 263, 25 L.Ed. 648 (1880), 5 'can only through agents, within States. If, thus acting, scope authority, those can arrested trial State court, offense law State, yet warranted authority possess, if general government powerless interfere once protection,—if protection left court,—the operations will members.' 6 For very basic reason, right absolute whenever color' office, regardless could originally been court. jurisdiction rests 'federal interest matter,' Poss Lieberman, 299 358, 359 (C.A.2d Cir.), cert. denied, 370 944, 82 1585, 8 810 (1962), officials. 7 Viewed context, ruling cannot sustained. 'narrow' 'limited.' Colorado Symes, 286 510, 517, 52 635, 637, 76 1253 (1932). At least, broad enough colorable duty law. One primary statute—as history clearly demonstrates—was litigated position would anomalous result allowing sustainable defense. dismissed. certainly meant more chose words office.' In fact, most reasons validity tried need win before removed. like one, officers, indeed itself, require forum. policy frustrated narrow, grudging interpretation 1442(a)(1). II. questio remains, grows conduct is, therefore, removable. acting 'on frolic own no relevancy employees States.' argued circumstances facts way respond allegation appear petitioners' affidavits judgment.3 There, petitioner declares contact 'inside walls Penitentiary, performance (his) Warden institution.' Petitioner declares, similarly, prison hospital 'and Chief Medical Officer regard care treatment, diagnoses routine physical examination.' did deny either statements responsive affidavit. then, adequately demonstrated showing occurred while executing inside penitentiary. 9 requires who file verified containing short plain statement facts' justifying removal. 1446(a). Moreover, 'the person seeking benefit (the provisions) candid, specific positive explaining relation transaction' gave rise suit. Maryland Soper (No. 1), 270 9, 35, 46 185, 191, 70 449 (1926); see supra, 518—521, 637 638. These requirements must, tailored fit each case. 10 settled officer, order secure removal, admit actually committed charged offenses. 32 190—191. Thus, admitted injured They were, confronted something dilemma. 'scattergun' complaint, charging wrongs different (and unspecified) dates. If 'candid, positive' allegations, describe every ever petitioner, contacts persons supervision. hardly practical, even possible, senior 11 nature,4 think sufficient shown relationship derived solely Past interpreted 'causal connection' between asserted authority. 'It (petitioners') (their) presence place constitute basis, though mistaken false, prosecution.' Ibid. case, penitentiary, performing duties, believe required connection.' connection consists, simply enough, undisputed fact duty, employment, relevant times. raised engaged kind 'frolic own' respondent, then opportunity present version federal, state, exactly what designed accomplish. sufficiently put issue justification immunity; determined 12 Appeals, erred Because resolution issue, express propriety award judgment. briefed Accordingly, proper vacate so remain 13 ordered. 14 Judgment vacated remanded. 15 BLACK, concurring. 16 I concur except portion quoted answer Government's contention: 17 agree.' 18 necessity comparing breadth authorizing 'for immunity.' lawsuits employee. difference claim purely conceptual measured means know about. 19 therefore eliminate abovequoted opinion. provides: '(a) criminal following district division embracing wherein pending: '(1) Any agency thereof, him, account right, title claimed apprehension punishment criminals collection revenue.' apparent conflict least three decisions. 358 (1962); North Carolina Carr, 386 129 (C.A.4th Cir. 1967); Allman Hanley, 302 559 (C.A.5th 1962). material appeared However, review treat amended include information contained later-filed affidavits. 1653; Buell Sears, Roebuck Co., 321 468 (C.A.10th 1963); Firemen's Ins. Co. Newark, N.J. Robbins Coal 288 349 368 875, 122, 77 (1961). also American Law Institute, Study Division Jurisdiction Between 264—265 (Tentative Draft 6, 1968). Were detailed necessary compelling conducting trials Cf. supra; supra.

Category: 8