Martha M. Dieu v. Ralph P. Norton, Wendell W. Wright, Robert F. Cotton, Marie M. Tellschow, Gerald Block & S. S. Kresge Co., 411 F.2d 761 (7th Cir. 1969). · Go Syfert
Search
Martha M. Dieu v. Ralph P. Norton, Wendell W. Wright, Robert F. Cotton, Marie M. Tellschow, Gerald Block & S. S. Kresge Co., 411 F.2d 761 (7th Cir. 1969). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
61 citation events (3 in the last 25 years) across 21 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Walker, Tony v. Thompson, Tommy (ca7, 2002-05-01)
Treatment trajectory · 1969 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1969 1997 2026
Statutes interpreted (leading-cases list)
#12 42 U.S.C. § 1981-1988 cited 1× in this case · 75 total citations of statute
Top citers, strongest first. 28 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Walker, Tony v. Thompson, Tommy
7th Cir. · 2002 · confidence medium
Cases such as Pangburn v. Culbertson, 200 F.3d 65, 72 (2d Cir. 1999); Dwares v. City of New York, 985 F.2d 94, 99-100 (2d Cir. 1993); Polur v. Raffe, 912 F.2d 52, 56 (2d Cir. 1990), and Zemsky v. City of New York, 821 F.2d 148, 151 (2d Cir. 1987) (and our own Kunik v. Racine County, 946 F.2d 1574, 1580 (7th Cir. 1991), and Dieu v. Norton, 411 F.2d 761, 763 (7th Cir. 1969)), which say that "conclusory allegations" of conspiracy, or allegations that fail to mention an overt act, are not enough to withstand a motion to dismiss cannot be squared with either Swierkiewicz or our recent decisions; we…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Tony Walker v. Tommy G. Thompson (2×)
7th Cir. · 2002 · confidence medium
Cases such as Pangburn v. Culbertson, 200 F.3d 65, 72 (2d Cir.1999); Dwares v. City of New York, 985 F.2d 94, 99-100 (2d Cir.1993); Polur v. Raffe, 912 F.2d 52, 56 (2d Cir.1990), and Zemsky v. City of New York, 821 F.2d 148, 151 (2d Cir.1987) (and our own Kunik v. Racine County, 946 F.2d 1574, 1580 (7th Cir.1991), and Dieu v. Norton, 411 F.2d 761, 763 (7th Cir.1969)), which say that “conclusory allegations” of conspiracy, or allegations that fail to mention an overt act, are not enough to withstand a motion to dismiss cannot be squared with either Swierkiewicz or our recent decisions; we n…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) David J. Smith v. Bronson Lafollette
7th Cir. · 1994 · confidence medium
A complaint does not allege a conspiracy when it contains "vague and conclusionary allegations ... without showing any 'overt acts which defendants engaged in which were reasonably related to the promotion of the claimed conspiracy.' " Hansen v. Ahlgrimm, 520 F.2d 768, 770 (7th Cir.1975) (quoting Dieu v. Norton, 411 F.2d 761, 763 (1969)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Marguerite Eades v. Donald J. Sterlinske, Bradley W. Huff and Julie Ewald
7th Cir. · 1987 · confidence medium
Dieu v. Norton, 411 F.2d 761, 763 (1969) (court reporter and court clerk, acting in discharge of their official duties, were protected by doctrine of judicial immunity); Briscoe v. La Hue, 663 F.2d 713 (1981) (court reporters at criminal proceedings were immune from liability under doctrine of judicial immunity); Henry v. Farmer City State Bank, 808 F.2d 1228, 1238 (7th Cir.1986) (court clerks entitled to judicial immunity if their official duties have an integral relationship with the judicial process).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Pomerantz v. County of Los Angeles
9th Cir. · 1982 · confidence medium
Other cases allowing quasi-judicial immunity for official duties which are not strictly judicial include: Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 430 , 96 S.Ct. 984, 994-95 , 47 L.Ed.2d 128, 143 (1976) (prosecutor in initiating a prosecution and presenting the government’s case); Johnson v. Reagan, 524 F.2d 1123, 1124 (9th Cir. 1975) (legislators); Bershad v. Wood, 290 F.2d 714, 716 (9th Cir. 1961) (Internal Revenue Service agents in levying on plaintiff’s bank deposit); Dieu v. Norton, 411 F.2d 761, 763 (7th Cir. 1969) (court clerk and court reporter); Pope v. Chew, 521 F.2d 400, 405 (4th Cir. …
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Pomerantz v. County Of Los Angeles
9th Cir. · 1982 · confidence medium
Although the trial court correctly denied attorney's fees given its disposition of the other issues, the attorney's fees issue must also be reconsidered on remand after the injunction claim has been considered in order to see if appellants are "prevailing parties" within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. § 794a and 42 U.S.C. § 1988 . 24 AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED AND REMANDED IN PART. 1 Other cases allowing quasi-judicial immunity for official duties which are not strictly judicial include: Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 430 , 96 S.Ct. 984, 994-95 , 47 L.Ed.2d 128, 143 (1976) (prosecutor in initia…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Mourat v. Common Pleas Court of Lehigh County
E.D. Pa. · 1981 · confidence medium
McLallen v. Henderson, 492 F.2d 1298, 1300 (8th Cir. 1974); Dieu v. Norton, 411 F.2d 761, 763 (7th Cir. 1969); Stewart v. Minnick, 409 F.2d 826 (9th Cir. 1969); Warden v. Ziegler, 462 F.Supp. 781, 782 (E.D.Mo.1978).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Simons v. Bellinger
D.C. Cir. · 1980 · confidence medium
Tenney v. Brandhove, 341 U.S. 367 , 71 S.Ct. 783 , 95 L.Ed. 1019 (1951) (legislators); Butz v. Economou, supra, (Agriculture Department Officials); Bershad v. Wood, 290 F.2d 714 (9th Cir. 1961) (Internal Revenue Service Agents); Bauers v. Heisel, 361 F.2d 581 (3rd Cir. 1966) (en banc) cert. denied, 386 U.S. 1021 , 87 S.Ct. 1367 , 18 L.Ed.2d 457 (1967) (Prosecutor for indictments obtained against minor); Brown v. Dunne, 409 F.2d 341, 343 (7th Cir. 1969 (Court clerk); Dieu v. Norton, 411 F.2d 761, 763 (7th Cir. 1969) (Court clerk and court reporter); Burkes v. Callion, 433 F.2d 318, 319 (9th Cir…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Reginald Williams v. Marie Wood
5th Cir. · 1980 · confidence medium
Slotnik v. Staviskey, 560 F.2d 31, 32 (1st Cir. 1977), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 1077 , 98 S.Ct. 1268 , 55 L.Ed.2d 783 (1978) (in entering judgment); Lockhart v. Hoenstine, 411 F.2d 455, 460 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 396 U.S. 941 , 90 S.Ct. 378 , 24 L.Ed.2d 244 (1969) (under court order); Brown v. Dunne, 409 F.2d 341, 343 (7th Cir. 1969) (in administering conservatorship); see Barnes v. Dorsey, 480 F.2d 1057, 1060 (8th Cir. 1973) (in denying transcript under procedural rules); Smith v. Rosenbaum, 460 F.2d 1019, 1020 (3d Cir. 1972) (in revoking bail bond under statutory requirement); Dieu v. Norton…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Simons v. Bellinger
D.C. Cir. · 1980 · confidence medium
Tenney v. Brandhove, 341 U.S. 367 , 71 S.Ct. 783 , 95 L.Ed. 1019 (1951) [legislators]; Butz v. Economou, supra, [Agriculture Department Officials]; Bershad v. Wood, 290 F.2d 714 (9th Cir. 1961) [Internal Revenue Service Agents]; Bauers v. Heisel, 361 F.2d 581 (3rd Cir. 1966) [en banc] cert. denied, 386 U.S. 1021 , 87 S.Ct. 1367 , 18 L.Ed.2d 457 (1967) [Prosecutor for indictments obtained against minor]; Brown v. Dunne, 409 F.2d 341, 343 (7th Cir. 1969 [Court clerk]; Dieu v. Norton, 411 F.2d 761, 763 (7th Cir. 1969) [Court clerk and court reporter]; Burkes v. Callion, 433 F.2d 318, 319 (9th Cir…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Sparkman v. McFarlin (2×)
7th Cir. · 1979 · confidence medium
Dieu v. Norton, 411 F.2d 761, 763 (7th Cir. 1969). (“Assuming, arguendo, that plaintiff is attempting to allege an actionable conspiracy within the reach of § 1983, supra, the complaint must fall.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Sparkman v. Mcfarlin (2×)
7th Cir. · 1979 · confidence medium
He lists alleged improprieties . . . and attributes these to a conspiracy between defendants and unnamed public officials, no further details being given."). 33 Dieu v. Norton, 411 F.2d 761, 763 (7th Cir. 1969). ("Assuming, arguendo, that plaintiff is attempting to allege an actionable conspiracy within the reach of § 1983, Supra, the complaint must fall.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Staelens v. Yake
N.D. Ill. · 1977 · confidence medium
Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547, 554 , 87 S.Ct. 1213 , 18 L.Ed.2d 288 (1967); Dieu v. Norton, 411 F.2d 761, 763 (7th Cir. 1969).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) 6th Camden Corp. v. Evesham Tp., Burlington Cty.
D.N.J. · 1976 · confidence medium
Hansen v. Ahlgrimm, 520 F.2d 768, 770 (7th Cir. 1975); Dieu v. Norton, 411 F.2d 761, 763 (7th Cir. 1969); Powell v. Workmen’s Compensation Board, 327 F.2d 131 , 137 (2nd Cir. 1964); compare Bethea v. Reid, 445 F.2d 1163, 1165 (3rd Cir. 1971), cert. denied, 404 U.S. 1061 , 92 S.Ct. 747 , 30 L.Ed.2d 749 (1972); see also part II.E, supra. Absent any factual allegations to support the charge of conspiracy, Rotolo inexorably requires dismissal of this complaint against these defendants. 532 F.2d at 922-23.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Jerome B. Hansen v. John C. Ahlgrimm and Harley Brown
7th Cir. · 1975 · confidence medium
At most, the complaint does no more than “ ‘merely state vague and conclusionary allegations respecting the existence of a conspiracy’ without showing any ‘overt acts which defendants engaged in which were reasonably related to the promotion of the claimed conspiracy.’ [citations omitted].” Dieu v. Norton, 411 F.2d 761, 763 (7th Cir. 1969).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Barnes v. Dorsey
E.D. Mo. · 1973 · confidence medium
Hanna v. Home Insurance Company, 281 F.2d 298, 303 (5th Cir. 1960); Dieu v. Norton, 411 F.2d 761, 763 (7th Cir. 1969); Rhodes, supra, 202 F.Supp. at 637 .
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Paddleford v. Biscay
Cal. Ct. App. · 1971 · confidence medium
“The ‘clear-absence-versus-mere-excess of jurisdiction’ distinction is still the law today, Bauers v. Heisel, 361 F.2d 581, 591 (3rd Cir. 1966), and *144 judicial immunity was not abrogated by the Civil Rights Act, supra. Pierson v. Ray, supra, 386 U.S. at 554 , 87 S.Ct. 1213 ; Dieu v. Norton, 411 F.2d 761, 763 (7th Cir. 1969); Bauers v. Heisel, supra, 361 F.2d at 591 .
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Robert Harris v. Frank J. Pate, Warden (2×)
7th Cir. · 1971 · confidence medium
However, in that case our court found the requisite degree of specificity to make the conclusions meaningful, which I find absent in the case before us. 19 I am also cognizant of the well established rule that where a complaint, such as the one we have before us, at best does nothing more than merely state vague and conclusionary allegations, failing to state facts which reasonably may be held to support such conclusions, then the complaint must fall as not being within the reach of 1983, supra. Dieu v. Norton, 7 Cir., 411 F.2d 761, 763 (1969); Powell v. Workmen's compensation Bd. of State of …
cited Cited as authority (rule) Brown v. Charles
E.D. Wis. · 1970 · confidence medium
Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547 , 87 S.Ct. 1213 , 18 L.Ed.2d 288 (1967); Dieu v. Norton, 411 F.2d 761, 763 (7th Cir. 1969); see also Jacobson v. Schaefer, 307 F.Supp. 690 (E.D.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Jacobson v. Schaefer
E.D. Wis. · 1969 · confidence medium
In Dieu v. Norton, 411 F.2d 761, 763 (7th Cir. 1969), the court ruled that a state court judge, a court reporter and a court clerk “ * * * were all acting in the discharge of their official responsibilities.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Paddleford v. Biscay
N.D. Cal. · 1969 · confidence medium
The “clear-absenee-versus-mere-excess of jurisdiction” distinction is still the law today, Bauers v. Heisel, 361 F.2d 581, 591 (3rd Cir. 1966), and judicial immunity was not abrogated by the Civil Rights Act, supra. Pierson v. Ray, supra, 386 U.S. at 554 , 87 S.Ct. 1213 ; Dieu v. Norton, 411 F.2d 761, 763 (7th Cir. 1969); Bauers v. Heisel, supra, 361 F.2d at 591 .
cited Cited "see" Fredrick v. Clark
W.D. Wis. · 1984 · signal: see · confidence high
See Dieu v. Norton, 411 F.2d 761 (7th Cir.1969).
cited Cited "see" Toni Murray v. City of Chicago
7th Cir. · 1980 · signal: see · confidence high
See Dieu v. Norton, 411 F.2d 761, 763 (7th Cir. 1969). .
discussed Cited "see" United States v. Herbert A. Howard and Elmer Gary Ritter
5th Cir. · 1978 · signal: see · confidence high
Stenographers § 1 (1953); see Dieu v. Norton, 411 F.2d 761 (7th Cir. 1969); Stewart v. Minnick, 409 F.2d 826 (9th Cir. 1969), charged with the duty of maintaining the secrecy of grand jury proceedings, see Fed.R.Crim.P. 6(e).
cited Cited "see" Eugene Barnes v. Sam Elmer Dorsey
8th Cir. · 1973 · signal: see · confidence high
Conley v. Gibson, supra; see Dieu v. Norton, 411 F.2d 761 (7th Cir. 1969).
cited Cited "see, e.g." Thurston v. Robison
D. Nev. · 1985 · signal: see also · confidence medium
See Stewart v. Minnick, 409 F.2d 826 (9th Cir.1969); see also Dieu v. Norton, 411 F.2d 761, 763 (7th Cir.1969).
cited Cited "see, e.g." Preston Lavern Howard v. Harry Lemmons and Kris Ray Kizer
5th Cir. · 1977 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also Dieu v. Norton, 7 Cir., 1969, 411 F.2d 761 .
cited Cited "see, e.g." Heckart v. Pate
N.D. Ill. · 1971 · signal: see also · confidence medium
See also Dieu v. Norton, 411 F.2d 761, 763 (7th Cir. 1969); Kauffman v. Moss, 420 F.2d 1270, 1275 (3rd Cir. 1970); Jewell v. City of Covington, 425 F.2d 459, 460 (5th Cir. 1970).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Martha M. DIEU, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
Ralph P. NORTON, Wendell W. Wright, Robert F. Cotton, Marie M. Tellschow, Gerald Block and S. S. Kresge Co., Defendants-Appellees
17198.
Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.
May 28, 1969.
411 F.2d 761
Martha M. Dieu, in pro. per., John P. O’Rourke, Danville, 111., for defendants-appellees Hon. Robert F. Cotton, Marie M. Tellschow and Gerald Block., Ralph P. Norton, pro se., Wendell W. Wright, William A. Young, Wright & Young, Danville, 111., for defendants-appellees Wendell W. Wright and S. S. Kresge Co.
Castle, Hastings, Campbell.
Cited by 52 opinions  |  Published
HASTINGS, Senior Circuit Judge.

This is an appeal from an order and judgment dismissing an' amended complaint. It was entered by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Illinois, Honorable William G. Juergens, Chief Judge presiding. The following statement is required to place this litigation in proper perspective.

Martha M. Dieu, of Danville, Illinois, brought an action for damages for personal injuries allegedly suffered in a fall in the K-Mart store in Danville on July 25, 1964. Named as defendant therein was S. S. Kresge Co., doing business as K-Mart. The action was filed in the Circuit Court of the Fifth Judicial Circuit, Vermillion County, Illinois.

In the state court proceeding plaintiff was represented by her privately employed attorney Ralph P. Norton. Defendant Kresge was represented by its attorney Wendell W. Wright. The case was tried to a jury. Honorable Robert F. Cotton, circuit judge, presided. Marie M. Tellschow, official court reporter, acted in her official capacity, and Gerald Block, clerk of the circuit court acted in his official capacity, during such proceedings.

At the close of plaintiff’s case, defendant filed its motion for a directed verdict and asked that the jury be instructed to return a verdict for defendant. The trial court denied such motion. The trial was resumed and defendant put in its case.

At the conclusion of all the evidence, defendant again moved for a directed verdict in its favor. The motion was granted, the jury was so instructed in writing and returned its verdict favorable to defendant. Judgment for defendant was entered thereon. A post-trial motion was filed on behalf of plaintiff and after argument was denied. No appeal was taken. Plaintiff, acting pro se, unsuccessfully sought to obtain, on her own terms, a transcript of the state court proceedings from the court reporter and circuit court clerk.

Thereafter, Martha M. Dieu brought the instant action in the federal district court for what may be denominated as an alleged violation of her civil rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C.A. §§ 1981-1988, although not mentioned as such in her complaint. She filed this action pro se and continues to act as her own attorney.

Named as defendants herein are the following persons who acted in their respective capacities in the state court proceeding, viz: Ralph P. Norton, plaintiff’s attorney; Wendell W. Wright, attorney for defendant Kresge; Robert F. Cotton, circuit judge; Marie M. Tells-[*763] chow, court reporter; and Gerald R. Block, court clerk. By an amended complaint, S. S. Kresge Co., defendant in the state court action, was named as an additional defendant.

As best we can understand, the theory of plaintiff’s pro se complaint is that her alleged present injury arises from the action of the state circuit judge in directing a verdict for- defendant at the conclusion of all the evidence.. She charges her attorney with engaging in some sort of a conspiracy by participating in a conference in the judge’s chambers on the motion for a directed verdict, and by refusing to appeal the case, even though she agreed to pay for ah appeal. She charges Kresge’s attorney with obstructing justice in moving for and securing a directed verdict. She charges the circuit judge with misconduct in sustaining the motion for a directed verdict, denying a “rehearing” and presumably of conspiring with lawyers in his chambers. She charges the court reporter with depriving her of a transcript of the trial and the clerk with denying her a transcript of the record. She insists that the Kresge Co. is responsible for her injuries and demands that we award her a judgment for $50,-000.

The district court sustained the several motions of defendants to dismiss the amended complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. Plaintiff appealed from this dismissal.

There is no showing or claim of diversity of citizenship. It would appear all parties are citizens of Illinois. Absent diversity, the district court properly tested the complaint for a showing of federal jurisdiction under the Civil Rights Act, supra. It found none and neither do we.

Defendants Norton and Wright were lawyers who participated in the trial of private state court litigation. We have repeatedly held that lawyers so engaged were not acting under color of state law within the meaning of the Civil Rights Act. Meier v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 7 Cir., 356 F.2d 504 (1966), cert. denied, 385 U.S. 875, 87 S.Ct. 151, 17 L.Ed.2d 102, and cases there cited.

Defendants Circuit Judge Cotton, court reporter Tellsehow and circuit court clerk Block were all acting in the discharge of their official responsibilities. As such they were protected by the traditional doctrine of judicial immunity, and this rule of law was not abolished by § 1983, supra. Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547, 553-555, 87 S.Ct. 1213, 18 L.Ed.2d 288 (1967); Bauers v. Heisel, 3 Cir., 361 F.2d 581, 586-588 (1966), cert. denied, 386 U.S. 1021, 87 S.Ct. 1367, 18 L.Ed.2d 457; [1] Byrne v. Kysar, 7 Cir., 347 F.2d 734, 736 (1965), cert. denied, 383 U.S. 913, 86 S.Ct. 902, 15 L.Ed.2d 668; Rhodes v. Meyer, 8 Cir., 334 F.2d 709, 718 (1964); Peek-ham v. Scanlon, 7 Cir., 241 F.2d 761, 763 (1957).

Assuming, arguendo, that plaintiff is attempting to allege an actionable conspiracy within the reach of § 1983, supra, the complaint must fall. At best, the complaint does nothing more “than merely state vague and conclusionary allegations respecting the existence of a conspiracy” without showing any “overt acts which defendants engaged in which were reasonably related to the promotion of the claimed conspiracy.” Powell v. Workmen’s Compensation Bd. of State of New York, 2 Cir., 327 F.2d 131, 137 (1964). See Davis v. Foreman, 7 Cir., 251 F.2d 421, 422 (1958), cert. denied, 356 U.S. 974, 78 S.Ct. 1137, 2 L. Ed.2d 1148.

Finally, it becomes apparent that the district court had no jurisdiction to render a money judgment against S. S. Kresge Co., an added defendant in the amended complaint below. Further, we have no jurisdiction to award plaintiff a judgment of $50,000[*764] against Kresge on this appeal, as she would have us do.

In light of the foregoing, we hold that the district court properly dismissed the amended complaint and the judgment order appealed from is affirmed.

Affirmed.

1

. For a comprehensive compilation of judicial immunity holdings, see 361 F.2d at 586-587.