U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, 1954

Green v. Baughman. Green v. Young

U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Decided July 15, 1954 · Prettyman, Bazelon, Washington

214 F.2d 878; 94 U.S. App. D.C. 291; 1954 U.S. App. LEXIS 2788 (Federal Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

A. Lincoln Green, appellant, pro se., Mr. Samuel J. L’Hommedieu, Jr., Asst. U. S. Atty., Washington, D. C., with whom Messrs. Leo A. Rover, U. S. Atty., and Lewis A. Carroll, Asst. U. S. Atty., Washington, D. C., were on the brief, for appellees. Mr. William J. Peck, Asst. U. S. Atty. at time record was filed, Washington, D. C., entered an appearance for appellees.

Cases that cite this one

9 later published cases cite this decision.

Jeanne M. Murray v. Robert L. Kunzig, Administrator, General Services (D.C. Cir. 1972)
A. Ernest Fitzgerald v. Robert E. Hampton, Chairman of United States Civil Service Commission (D.C. Cir. 1972)
Hills v. Eisenhart (9th Cir. 1958)
Hills v. Eisenhart (9th Cir. 1958)
A. Lincoln Green v. J. Stanley Baughman, President, Federal National Mortgage Association (D.C. Cir. 1957)
J. Stanley Baughman, President, Federal National Mortgage Association v. A. Lincoln Green (D.C. Cir. 1956)
William J. Fitzpatrick v. Philip W. Snyder, Commander, Boston Naval Shipyard (1st Cir. 1955)
Finch v. Rogers (District Court, District of Columbia 1960)
May v. Glore (District Court, E.D. New York 1955)

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 this case the appellant, a veteran having civil service status, was dismissed by the government agency which employed him. He took an appeal to the Civil Service Commission under Section 14 of the Veterans Preference Act, 5 U.S.C.A. § 863. While it was pending he brought two actions in the District Court — one against the head of his agency and the other against the Chairman of the Civil Service Commission. In each complaint he prayed, inter alia, for reinstatement in his old position and that the Civil Service Commission be enjoined from holding a hearing upon his appeal. In each the principal allegation was that the charges served on him by his agency lacked specificity. The District Court, being of the view that at least one of the charges was sufficiently specific, dismissed the complaints. These appeals followed.

We think that the dismissal of the complaints was correct, for the reason that appellant has not exhausted the administrative remedies given him by Section 14 of the Veterans Preference Act. Johnson v. Nelson, 86 U.S.App. D.C. 98, 180 F.2d 386, certiorari denied, 1950, 339 U.S. 957, 70 S.Ct. 980, 94 L.Ed. 1368. Such questions as those raised by appellant are for administrative determination in the first instance. Here appellant has gone into court before final administrative review has been had. Only rarely, and in exceptional circumstances, is such a course justified. See Aircraft & Diesel Equipment Corp. v. Hirsch, 1947, 331 U.S. 752, 773-774, 67 S.Ct. 1493, 91 L.Ed. 1796. Cf. Hilton v. *879 Sullivan, 1948, 334 U.S. 323, 68 S.Ct. 1020, 92 L.Ed. 1416 (suit attacking validity of administrative regulations; matter of exhaustion of agency remedies not discussed). Here no special circumstances exist which might justify maintenance of the pending suits. On that ground, the judgments of the District Court dismissing the complaints will be

Affirmed.

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