Corsican Productions, a Partnership v. Peter Pitchess, Individually and as Sheriff of the County of Los Angeles, State of California
Opinion
Opinion
Browning, J.
Appellants’ complaint under the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 , 28 U.S. C.A. § 1343(3), was dismissed with prejudice on the ground that it did not state a claim upon which relief could be granted.
The complaint alleged that appellants produced a motion picture film titled “Bachelor Tom Peeping,” which was not obscene; that various motion picture exhibitors wished to exhibit the film in the County of Los Angeles; that the sheriff, deputy sheriff, and district attorney of that county (the appellees), deliberately intending to suppress the exhibition of the film because they deemed it objectionable, threatened to prosecute exhibitors of the film under penal statutes prohibiting exhibition of obscene motion pictures; that solely because of appellees’ conduct exhibitors declined to exhibit the film; and that its exhibition in the County of Los Angeles was, and would continue to be, prevented. Appellants prayed for a declaration that the film was not obscene, for an order restraining appellees, from interfering with exhibition of the film, and for damages.
“[T]he accepted rule that a complaint should not be dismissed for failure to state a claim unless it appears beyond doubt…