Case Resources
Search this Case
in Google Scholar
on the Web
Google Web Search
MSN Web Search
Yahoo! Web Search
in the News
Google News Search
Google News Archive Search
Yahoo! News Search
in the Blogs
BlawgSearch.com Search
Google Blog Search
Technorati Blog Search
in other Databases
Google Book Search
Justia Research Resources
Justia.com
Supreme Court Center
US Regulation Tracker
US District Court Opinions
Federal District Court Civil Case Filings
Legal Blog Search
Legal Podcast Search
USA Constitution Annotated
Online Research Resources
Cornell LII
Cornell Wex Dictionary & Encyclopedia
LLRX.com - Legal Research
Expert Witness Directory
Nolo Consumer & Business
US Court Forms
WashLaw Directory
World LII
Cases Provided By
Creative Commons
public.resource.org
Charles T. Sanders, Appellant, v. Independent School District No. I-2, of Kiowa County,oklahoma, et al., Appellees
United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit. - 459 F.2d 51
May 11, 1972
Wayne B. Snow, Loyd Benefield, Ok-(John R. Couch, and Thomas G. Braddock, Altus, Okl., with him on the brief), for appellant.
Elliott C. Fenton, Oklahoma City, Okl., for appellees.
Wayne B. Snow, Loyd Benefield, Oklahoma City, Okl., and Johnny M. Perry, Hobart, Okl., on the brief, for appellees, except Bob Garton.
Elliott C. Fenton, Oklahoma City, Okl., on the brief, for appellee, Bob Garton.
Before LEWIS, Chief Judge and HOLLOWAY and McWILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
Alleging a civil rights action under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1343(3) and 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983, plaintiff, a school teacher, brought this action for damages against his employer school district and various school officials claiming damages for wrongful discharge from his employment. Plaintiff alleges that on April 3, 1970, he entered into a one-year teaching contract and was wrongfully discharged on September 28, 1970, because defendants "dislike the fact that the plaintiff grew a mustache; they requested that he remove it; he refused; and they fired him." The trial court dismissed the action for lack of jurisdiction.
The judgment of dismissal is manifestly correct. Plaintiff's complaint asserts nothing more than a breach of contract claim, alleges no claim to diversity jurisdiction, negates specifically any claim to a constitutional right to wear a mustache, and recites no involvement of a substantial federal question. Adelt v. Richmond School District, 9 Cir., 439 F.2d 718. And see Freeman v. Flake, 10 Cir., 448 F.2d 258. The Civil Rights Act cannot be used as a jurisdictional subterfuge for traditional lawsuits. Oklahoma High School Athletic Ass'n v. Bray, 10 Cir., 321 F.2d 269.
Affirmed.