Court Opinion

ID: 9450228
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 16:39:03.56973+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:32:12.304202
License: Public Domain

SWYGERT, Circuit Judge
(dissenting).
Defendant Marlin W. Johnson, special agent in charge of the Chicago office of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, apPeals from a preliminary injunction issued h? the district court restraining defendant and his a=ents from main,tail1ln/ for^an,one caf wlthxn one block °f plamtlff S b°me’ more than one car at any one time following plaintiff, and directing that at least one foursome intervene between plaintiff and FBI agents when plaintiff plays golf.
The district court, following a hearing on the application for the preliminary injunction, entered findings of fact.1 *371Upon the basis of these findings, the district judge concluded that the court had “jurisdiction of the subject matter of this suit, this being an action to protect the civil rights of the plaintiff, Sam Giancana, under the 4th and 5th Amend-men ts to the Constitution of the United States.” He further concluded:
That the rights under the 4th and 5th Amendments to which the plaintiff is entitled as a citizen of the United States and a person within the jurisdiction of the United States are: (1) The right to be free from arbitrary intrusion into his privacy by Agents of the Federal Government, without due process of law; (2) the right to be free from deprivation of his liberty and freedom by agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation without due process of law; and (3) the right to be let alone by agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation unless there be reasonable grounds to justify interference of plaintiff’s liberty and freedom by said agents.
Defendant did not include in his interlocutory appeal the denial of his motion to dismiss. This court holds, however, that the complaint was fatally defective because there was no express allegation that the amount in controversy exceeded $10,000 and that this amount could not be inferred from the facts in-the complaint.
,, . . It is incongruous to hold that a formal allegation of the amount in controversy is necessary when personal liberties of the magnitude alleged in the complaint and found by the district court are involved. To require a dollar value to be-specifically averred in these circumstances ig to exalt form oyer substanee.
In my opinion the fact that there was-no formal allegation of the requisite ju~ risdictional amount did not prevent the-district court from assuming jurisdiction. The complaint alleged that defendant and his agents deprived plaintiff of the use of his home and that they violated his right of privacy and persona! liberty. From these allegations the district court could infer, contrary to what, the majority indicates, that the amount in controversy exceeded $10,000.
I would affirm.

. The district court’s findings include the following:
That plaintiff’s evidence tended * * * to prove that Agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation kept plaintiff and his home, together with his rela-fives, friends and associates, under constant surveillance and observation at his home twenty-four hours per day. That since the evidence of the plaintiff was not contradicted by any evidence offered by the defendant, nor were any eoun-ter-affidavits filed by the defendant, nor were the witnesses presented by the plaintiff cross-examined by the defendant, the court finds that the vehicles in and about the home of the plaintiff, Sam Giancana, from June 10, 1963 to July 15, 1963 were in the care, custody and control of Agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation under the direetion of the defendant Marlin W. Johnson; and that the Agents of the Bureau who kept plaintiff and his home under constant surveillance and observation twenty-four hours each day. were likewise under the direction of the said defendant, Marlin W. Johnson,
That from June 10, 1963 to July 15, 1963 at times when the plaintiff was at Jome, Agents of the Federal Bureau Investigation followed the plaintiff wherever lie went keeping him under constant observation and surveillance twenty-four hours each day.
That on one occasion Agents of the ITederal Bureau of Investigation followed the plaintiff as he went about his affairs they sald t0 hlm: “We„ar,® * glV6 y°U pr0tftl0n’ Sar? " “Why don t you get out of town and cut all this stuff out, or get out of the Country.”
That on June 30, 1963 Agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation followed the plaintiff, Sam Giancana, and members of his family as he went about his private affairs and went to the home of Mrs. Bose Flood where plaintiff and members of his family went to visit, Agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation remained outside of the home of Bose Flood flashing the lights of their vehicles as signals and maintaining constant surveillance of the home of Bose Flood while the plaintiff *371Sam Giancana was in and about said residence.
That during the period June 10, 1963 and July 15, 1963 Agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation followed the plaintiff Sam Giancana to the golf club where he patronizes and remained close to him and those with whom he played golf so that Agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation numbering *° w“e dlre°Üy plaintiff and ms friends as they played golf, being immediately the next foursome following plaintiff and the group with which he was playing golf.
That during the period June 10, 1963 to July 15, 1963 the number of vehicles which the defendant Marlin AV. Johnson maintained in and about the home of the plaintiff Sam Giancana at 1147 South AVenonah Street, Village of Oak Park, Illinois, numbered variously from, two to as many as five each with two Agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation for the purpose of maintaining constant twenty-four hour a day obserVation and surveillance of the plaintiff and his home and to follow him as ^ ^ be went about hls prlvate a£Ealrs'
That the defendant not shown to-the court any reason or justification for the surveillance and observation of the plaintiff as shown by the evidence.