Robert M. Botts v. United States

Good Law
413 F.2d 41·1969 U.S. App. LEXIS 12122
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitJune 3, 196923246California1,989 words

Opinion

Opinion

Hamley, J.

Robert M. Botts, an attorney at law, brought this action against the United States under a provision of the Tucker Act, 28 U.S.C.- § 1346(a) (2) (1964). He sought reimbursement for legal services rendered, as court-appointed counsel, to two indigent defendants in two federal criminal proceedings. He also sought punitive damages.

The facts concerning Botts’ appointments as counsel and his performance of legal services are not in dispute. On November 29, 1966, he was appointed to represent Russell Gillespie, accused of stowing aboard ship in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2199 (1964). On February 15, 1967, he was appointed to represent Arthur Grindstaff, charged with embezzling on a military reservation a thing of value not exceeding twenty dollars, in violation of section 281-5, Revised Laws of Hawaii, 1955, as amended, the same being a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 13 (1964). Botts served as counsel for both defendants and succeeded in having the charges against Gillespie and Grind-staff dismissed.

Botts alleged that, to the best of his knowledge, information, memory, and belief, he submitted signed vouchers with regard to these legal services to the clerk of the United States District…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.