N'LykA8wL. RODNEY F. STICH, Plaintiff, ALAN CRANSTON, et al. Defendants.

Transcription

1 MICHAEL DAVIDSON Senate Legal Counsel KEN U. BENJAMIN, Jr. MORGAN J. FRANKEL Assistant Senate Legal Counsel 642 Hart Senate Office Building Washington, D.C. 20, (202) Counsel for Defendant Senator Alan Cranston UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA RODNEY F. STICH, Plaintiff, v. ALAN CRANSTON, et al. Defendants. SUPPLEMENT TO DEFENDANT SENATOR ALAN CRANSTON'S MOTION TO DISMISS In the memorandum in support of our motion to dismiss, we noted (on page 3) that the plaintiff had also sued members of Congress in a related action in the District of Columbia. A copy of the Memorandum Opinion and Order in Stich v. Kennedy, et al., C.A. No (D.D.C. March 29, 1989), dismissing that action is. attached. Respectfully submitted, N'LykA8wL Senate Legal Counsel Ken U. Benjamin, Jr. Morgan J. Frankel Assistant Senate Legal Counsel Dated: April 4, 1989 Counsel for Defendant Senator Alan Cranston

2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA RODNEY F. STITCH, 1 v. EDWARD KENNEDY, et al., Plaintif f, Defendants. 1 MEMORANDUM OPINION MAR CLERK, U.S. DtSTRlCT COURT DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ) ) Civil Action No ) (Stanley Sporkin) This is one of many civil actions filed by plaintiff concerning an alleged conspiracy by three branches of government "to violate federal air safety requirements, and obstruct government inspectors reporting and correction of the air safety felonies and misconduct which made possible the major air safety misconduct and numerous fatal crashes." Plaintiff's Complaint 9, Pg. 5. The plaintiff filed this civil action against six members of the Senate and five present and former members of the House of Representatives. Plaintiff asserts that the defendants have the responsibility and the power to prevent and aid in the prevention of violations of these rights and privileges which were inflicted against plaintiff. He states that he notified defendants of the violations and repeatedly petitioned them for relief. Plaintiff claims that defendants misused their positions by "refusing to provide the relief to prevent the violation of l~he Senators are Edward M. Kennedy, Strom Thurmond, Ernest F. Hollings, Albert Gore, Jr., Pete Wilson, and Joseph Biden, Jr. The Congressmen are Jack Brooks, John Conyers, Jr., Peter Rodino, Jr., Harley 0-Staggers, Jr., and Henry 3- Gonzalez.

3 rights and privileges suffered by plaintiff." Plaintiff maintains that the defendants "joined in the wide ranging conspiracy by remaining silent." Defendants have'moved for dismissal on the grounds that the action is barred by the Speech and Debate Clause of the United States Constitution, and that plaintiff has otherwise failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Upon reviewing the complaint, the court finds that this action is indeed barred by the Constitution and fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Discussion A court's consideration of the Speech and Debate Clause as a defense must occur at the outset of the action, before consideration of any other grounds for dismissal. See, Browninq v. Clerk, U.S. House of Re~resentatives, 789 F.2d 923, 926, n. 7 (D.C.Cir. 1986), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 996 (1986). Motions based on this ground should be handled as expeditiously as possible, since any member of Congress who is found to be acting within the scope of the Clause is protected from both the consequences of the action and the burden of defending against the action. Dombrowski v. Eastland, 387 U.S. 82, (1967) The Speech and Debate Clause states that "for any Speech and Debate in either House, [members of Congress] shall not be questioned in any other Pla~e.~' Art. I, sec. 6, cl. 1. The Clause protects from judicial inquiry all activities that are an integral part of the deliberative and communicative processes by which Members participate in committee and

4 House proceedings with respect to the consideration and passage of proposed legislation or with respect to other matters which the Constitution places within the jurisdiction of either House. Gravel v. United States, 408 U.S. 606, 625 (1972). Neither civil nor criminal actions may be used to delve within the sphere of legitimate legislative activity and "questionw decisions by members of Congress as to whether a particular matter should be investigated, or whether and what kind of legislation should be introduced concerning the matter. Eastland v. United States Sewicements Fund, 421 U.S. 491, (1975). The acts and ommissions complained of by the plaintiff clearly fall within the legitimate legislative sphere protected by the Speech and Debate Clause. Id., 421 U.S. at 503. The plaintiff also seeks relief from the defendants failure to respond directly to the plaintiff regarding plaintiff's reports and petitions. While the plaintiff's right to petition Congress is guaranteed by the First Amendment, a member of Congress is not required to "listen or respond to individualst communications on public issues." Minnesota State Board for Communitv Colleges v. Knisht, 465 U.S. 271, 285 (1984); Bi-Metalic Investment Co. v. State Board of Euualization, 239 U.S. 441 (1915) (Holmes, J.) (Disapproval of officials' responsiveness is to be registered at the polls). Thus plaintiff's allegations of defendantsv failure to respond to his reports and petitions fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted and therefore must be dismissed 3

5 under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b) (6). An appropriate order shall accompany this opinion. DATE :