Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

Amy C. Delcambre v. L. E. Delcambre, Jr.

Amy C. Delcambre v. L. E. Delcambre, Jr., 635 F.2d 407 (5th Cir. 1981)

Type: Opinion
Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: Federal
Date: 1981-01-26
Topic: general

holding that on-duty chief of police did not act under color of law when he assaulted his sister-in-law at police station because assault arose from purely private family dispute | holding that on-duty chief of police did not act under color of law when he assaulted his sister-in-law at police station because assault arose from purely private family dispute | holding that a police officer did not act under color of law when he assaulted his sister-in-law in part because “the altercation arose out of an argument over family and political matters” | finding that a police chief was not acting under color of state law when involved in an altercation with his sister-in-law while he was on duty | finding that a police chief was not acting under color of state law when involved in an altercation with his sister-in-law while he was on duty | holding that a police chief was not acting under color of state law despite the fact that he was at work at the police station when he assaulted his sister-in-law over personal arguments about family issues | finding that a police chief was not acting under color of state law when involved in an altercation with his sister-in-law while he was on duty | dismissing a § 1983 claim involving an assault by an on-duty officer, because the assault “arose out of an argument over family and political matters and [the plaintiff] was neither arrested nor threatened with arrest” | dismissing a § 1983 claim involving an assault by an on-duty officer, because the assault “arose out of an argument over family and political matters and [the plaintiff] was neither arrested nor threatened with arrest” | police chief who assaulted someone at police headquarters was not acting under color of law because it was about a family dispute | an onduty police officer's assault of the plaintiff at a police station was not state action because it arose out of a personal dispute and the officer neither arrested nor threatened to arrest the plaintiff | police chief who allegedly assaulted his sister in law not acting under color of state law, given that “the altercation arose out of an argument over family and political matters” | sheriff did not act under color of law when he assaulted his sister-in-law at the police station while he was on duty because the assault arose out of a family argument and because sheriff never arrested or threatened to arrest his sister-in-law

Citator

Cited by: 32 opinions

DELCAMBRE v. DELCAMBRE,635 F.2d 407(5th Cir. 1981)

AMY C. DELCAMBRE, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, v. L.E. DELCAMBRE, JR., ET AL.,

DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES.

No. 80-3497.

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Unit A.

January 26, 1981.

Page 408

Anatole J. Plaisance, New Orleans, La., for plaintiff-appellant.

Onebane, Donohoe, Bernard, Torian, Diaz, McNamara Abell, Edward C. Abell, Jr., Lafayette, La., Theodore M. Haik, Jr., New Iberia, La., for defendants-appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana.

Before BROWN, POLITZ and TATE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

[1] Appellant, Amy C. Delcambre, claims that she was restrained and assaulted by her brother-in-law L. E. Delcambre, Jr., the Chief of Police of the Town of Delcambre, Louisiana. She brought this civil rights action under42 U.S.C. §§ 1983and1985against Chief Delcambre, the Town of Delcambre and the Traders and General Insurance Company. Prior to trial, the District Court dismissed the action against the Town of Delcambre. Subsequently, after a full blown trial, including testimony by a host of Delcambres, the court determined that a federal claim had not been proven and that the exercise of pendent jurisdiction would be inappropriate. Accordingly, the case was dismissed as to the remaining defendants. Because we find no merit to the various claims of error raised on this appeal, we affirm.

[2] The precise circumstances surrounding the incident in question were hotly contested at trial. It appears uncontroverted that on or about the evening of November 24, 1975, an altercation occurred between Chief Delcambre and Amy Delcambre on the premises of the municipal police station located virtually in the backyard of Amy Delcambre's home. Although the District Court found that at the time of the incident Chief Delcambre was on duty, the court further found, we believe correctly, that the altercation arose out of an argument over family and political matters and that Amy Delcambre was neither arrested nor threatened with arrest.

[3] On the basis of these fact findings, there are no grounds for reversal. First, the court correctly dismissed the action against the Town of Delcambre. Although there are instances in which a municipality may be held liable for the tortious acts of its officials, this is clearly not such a case.See Monell v. NewYork City Dep't. of Soc. Serv.,438 U.S. 658,98 S.Ct. 2018,56 L.Ed.2d 611(1978). Second, the court correctly dismissed the entire action on the grounds that Amy Delcambre failed to prove a cause of action under42 U.S.C. § 1983.¹Although Chief Delcambre allegedly assaulted Amy Delcambre on the premises of the municipal police station, it is clear that he was not acting under color of law as required for liability under that statute.See Kellerman v. Askew,541 F.2d 1089,1090(5th Cir. 1976);Greco v. Orange Memorial Hospital Corporation,513 F.2d 873,877(5th Cir. 1975). Finally, we do not find that the District Court erred in refusing to decide this case under pendent jurisdiction, a matter within the discretion of the court.SeeUnited Mine Workers v. Gibbs,383 U.S. 715,86 S.Ct. 1130,16 L.Ed.2d 218(1966);Westchester Corporation v. Peat, Marwick,Mitchell Co.,626 F.2d 1212,1217(5th Cir. 1980);Pharo v.Smith,621 F.2d 656,674-75(5th Cir. 1980). In light of these findings, we need not reach Amy Delcambre's other points of error.

[4] AFFIRMED.Page 409

Amy Delcambre does not press a42 U.S.C. § 1985claim on appeal, nor do we see a basis for such a claim. ↩