by the Act itself and do not involve constitutional rights of a defendant charged with crime. In the opinion of the court, the procedural requirements of the statute were complied with; plaintiff has been accorded all the rights to which he was entitled; and his discharge was not in violation of the procedural requirements of the statute. With the truth or falsity of the accusations, we are not concerned. Levine v. Farley, et al., 70 App.D.C. 381, 107 F.2d 186.
An analysis of the plaintiff's requests for relief, set out in detail supra, indicates that plaintiff is seeking the exercise by this court of mandamus powers. District Courts of the United States, however, have no jurisdiction over actions directed originally towards securing such relief. Petrowski v. Nutt, 9 Cir., 1947, 161 F.2d 938; Palmer v. Walsh, D.C. Or. 1948, 78 F.Supp. 64; Kohlman v. Smith, D.C.W.D. Pa. 1947, 71 F.Supp. 73. Section 262 of the Judicial Code, 28 U.S.C.A. § 377 (revised Sec. 1651), provides jurisdiction to issue all writs not specifically provided for by statute. But under that section, as interpreted by the cases previously cited in this paragraph, district courts can issue writs of mandamus which are auxiliary and ancillary only in character and necessary to the exercise of original jurisdiction of the court.
Under the plaintiff's second prayer for relief, this action might conceivably be construed as a suit for a declaratory judgment, in that this court is asked to declare certain acts of the subordinates of the Secretary of the Navy illegal and therefore ineffectual in bringing about the discharge of the plaintiff from the classified Civil Service. If the action be viewed as a suit for a declaratory judgment affecting plaintiff's rights, this court likewise lacks jurisdiction of the cause since the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C.A. § 400, 28 U.S.C.A. §§ 2201, 2202, did not enlarge the jurisdiction of the district courts of the United States. Paomer v. Walsh, supra, citing Putnam v. Ickes, 64 App.D.C. 339, 78 F.2d 223; Chicago Pneumatic Tool Co. v. Ziegler, 3 Cir., 151 F.2d 284; Doehler Metal Furniture Co. v. Warren, 76 U.S.App.D.C. 60, 129 F.2d 43.
Further on the question of the jurisdiction of the district courts to grant relief in cases of this nature, the opinion of Judge Drive in Palmer v. Walsh, supra, was referred to with approval, although by way of dictum, by Judge Fee in Hopkins v. Wallin, et al., 3 Cir., 179 F.2d 136. Judge Driver's opinion in the Palmer case holds very clearly that the district courts are without jurisdiction to interfere by issuing mandamus, or by issuing a mandatory injunction affecting civil service rights, or to determine by a declaratory judgment the plaintiff's right to be restored to a civil service position from which he had allegedly been wrongfully removed.
For the reasons above stated, we have determined that plaintiff's complaint must be and it is hereby dismissed.
© 1992-2004 VersusLaw Inc.