U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, 1974

Melvin Allen Burris v. State Department of Public Welfare of South Carolina

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Decided February 8, 1974 · Haynsworth, Winter, Turk

491 F.2d 762; 1974 U.S. App. LEXIS 10141 (Federal Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

John B. Culbertson and John B. Duggan, Greenville, S. C., for appellant., Daniel R. McLeod, Atty. Gen. and John B. Grimball, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

Cases that cite this one

8 later published cases cite this decision.

Walter Gordon v. William D. Leeke, Commissioner Joe Martin, Warden, Wayne Stephen Young v. George H. Collins, Warden (4th Cir. 1978)
Van Horn v. Lukhard (District Court, E.D. Virginia 1975)
Canty v. City of Richmond, Va., Police Dept. (District Court, E.D. Virginia 1974)
Daniel Jackson v. D. Dameron (4th Cir. 2026)
Raymond Muzquiz v. City of San Antonio (5th Cir. 1975)
Olivia S. Huntley v. The North Carolina State Board of Education (4th Cir. 1974)
Bass v. Harbor Light Marina, Inc. (District Court, D. South Carolina 1974)
Younger v. Chernovetz (United States District Court for the District of Connecticut 1992)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

In an amended complaint filed in the District Court plaintiff alleged that he was denied due process of law in violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution in that the defendant, State Department of Public Welfare of South Carolina, did not afford him an adequate hearing before denying his application for Aid to the Totally and Permanently Disabled. The District Court Judge granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint on the ground that the court did not have jurisdiction because the complaint failed to state a substantial federal question or the requisite jurisdictional amount.

Although plaintiff’s complaint did not allege a violation of his constitutional rights under Title 42 U.S.C. § 1983 with jurisdiction pursuant to Title 28 U.S.C. § 1343(3), the expansive protection provided by these statutes would have encompassed his allegations and entitled him to consideration by the court of the merits of his complaint regardless of jurisdictional amount. Of course an action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 must seek relief from a “person” which would apparently not include the named defendant, State Department of Public Welfare of South Carolina. See City of Kenosha v. Bruno, 412 U.S. 507, 93 S.Ct. 2222, 37 L.Ed.2d 109 (1973); Monroe v. Pape, 365 U.S. 167, 81 S.Ct. 473, 5 L.Ed.2d 492 (1961). See also Moor v. County of Alameda, 411 U.S. 693, 93 S.Ct. 1785, 36 L.Ed.2d 596 (1973).-

Without expressing or implying any opinion whatsoever as to the merits of plaintiff’s complaint, the court is of the opinion that the District Court Judge should have apprised plaintiff’s counsel of the availability of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 28 U.S.C. § 1343, and assuming that the complaint is amended to come within these statutes, the District Court should accept jurisdiction and consider the merits of the case. Accordingly, the order dismissing plaintiff’s complaint is vacated, and this case is remanded to the District Court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Vacated and remanded.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.