(DOWNLOAD) "Kerrigan v. Boucher" by United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ~ eBook PDF Kindle ePub Free
eBook details
- Title: Kerrigan v. Boucher
- Author : United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
- Release Date : January 14, 1971
- Genre: Law,Books,Professional & Technical,
- Pages : * pages
- Size : 56 KB
Description
MULLIGAN, Circuit Judge: Thomas J. Kerrigan rented a room on a week to week basis in Hartford, Connecticut from defendant owners, Boucher and Paquette and their agent -- superintendent Garcia. On or about November 10, 1970, because of an alleged $30 rent arrearage, the defendants seized Kerrigan's artificial dentures, two pair of eyeglasses, shaving equipment, undergarments, suit, radio, television set, coin collection and other personal effects. The record is silent as to the manner in which this total deprivation of Mr. Kerrigan's most intimate accessories was accomplished. On November 27, 1970 this action in forma pauperis was commenced in the United States District Court of Connecticut. Federal jurisdiction was urged on the basis that the defendants were acting under color of law pursuant to section 49-68 of the Connecticut General Statutes1 which gives boarding house keepers a lien upon the baggage and the personal effects of non-paying lodgers until the debt is paid and further provides for the landlord's right to sell such detained goods if the debt is not paid within 60 days. Plaintiff urged that the Connecticut statute either on its face or as applied to him violates the fourth, ninth and fourteenth amendments of the Constitution and that original jurisdiction was conferred upon the court under the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1343 which gives the District Court jurisdiction over most claims made under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The plaintiffs sought a declaration that the Connecticut statute is unconstitutional, as well as injunctive relief against the landlord and damages. Sometime after the commencement of the action the defendants returned all of Kerrigan's possessions; they then failed to appear or to answer the complaint. Plaintiff moved for summary judgment which was denied by United States District Judge Blumenfeld in an opinion in which he found insufficient state action upon which to base a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The complaint was dismissed on the merits. 326 F. Supp. 647 (D.Conn.1971).