Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Robert Edward Lehman v. The City of Pittsburgh, 474 F.2d 21, 3rd Cir. (1973)
Robert Edward Lehman v. The City of Pittsburgh, 474 F.2d 21, 3rd Cir. (1973)
Robert Edward Lehman v. The City of Pittsburgh, 474 F.2d 21, 3rd Cir. (1973)
2d 21
John H. Bingler, Thorp, Reed & Armstrong, Pittsburgh, Pa., for appellant.
Daniel M. Curtin, Asst. City Sol., Ralph Lynch, Jr., City Sol., Pittsburgh,
Pa., for appellees.
Before VAN DUSEN and ADAMS, Circuit Judges and BARLOW,
District Judge.
OPINION OF THE COURT
PER CURIAM:
The district court dismissed the complaint on the grounds that (1) the court
lacked subject matter jurisdiction, because the complaint failed to raise a
substantial federal question; and (2) the complaint failed to state a claim upon
which relief could be granted.
We affirm that portion of the district court's order dismissing the complaint as
to the City of Pittsburgh and the Civil Service Commission of Pittsburgh.
Monroe v. Pape, 365 U.S. 167, 81 S.Ct. 473, 5 L.Ed.2d 492 (1961), held that a
municipality is not a "person" for the purpose of Sec. 1983 suits for damages
and is not, therefore, subject to suit. This holding has been extended to bar such
suits against city agencies, United States ex rel. Gittlemacker v. County of
Philadelphia, 413 F.2d 84 (3d Cir. 1969); see Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547, 87
S.Ct. 1213, 18 L.Ed.2d 288 (1967). It has also been applied by this Court to
Sec. 1983 suits for injunctive relief. Educational Equality League v. Tate, 472
F.2d 612, n. 1 (3d Cir., filed Jan 11, 1973).