finding that dismissal of plaintiffs § 1985(1) claims against certain defendants was appropriate pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), because, inter alia, defendants had “agreed to engage in constitutionally protected speech”
How later courts described this case
- finding that dismissal of plaintiffs § 1985(1) claims against certain defendants was appropriate pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), because, inter alia, defendants had “agreed to engage in constitutionally protected speech”
- stating that the Privacy Act applies to only federal agencies
- holding that Privacy Act claims cannot be brought against state or local agencies
- finding no property right where the employer maintained unconditional power to remove an employee from his position
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
MOYNAHAN, Chief District Judge,
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
I concur in the result reached in Judge Contie’s opinion, but dissent from that portion thereof which holds that the defendant, Hardin, was not entitled to claim absolute immunity in connection with the § 1985(1) claim.
I am convinced that subjecting the United States Attorney to potential liability for relaying complaints regarding the actions of his Assistant to a Deputy Attorney General is a dangerous precedent and represents a serious erosion of the powers and responsibilities of the United States Attorney.
I am further convinced that such disposition of this case may well provoke extensive litigation and necessitate diversion of the Prosecutor’s efforts from the duties of his office to defending himself against baseless suits by disgruntled employees.
I find nothing in the cases cited in the majority opinion, including Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 , 102 S.Ct. 2727 , 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982) which militates against this conclusion.
As this expressly prospective ruling promulgated by the majority opinion is of critical importance to the Officers of the Criminal Justice System, I question whether it should be disposed of by a panel rather than by the full Court.