Gabriel v. Clark

Decision Date28 June 1968
Docket NumberCiv. No. 49419.
Citation287 F. Supp. 369
PartiesCharles Joseph Cuney GABRIEL, Plaintiff, v. Ramsey CLARK, etc., et al., Defendants.
CourtU.S. District Court — Northern District of California

Gladstein, Andersen, Leonard & Sibbett, San Francisco, Cal., for petitioner.

Cecil F. Poole, U. S. Atty., San Francisco, Cal., for respondent.

ORDER FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

GEORGE B. HARRIS, Chief Judge.

This cause coming on to be heard on June 27, 1968, on the motion of plaintiff for a preliminary injunction; and due notice having been given to the defendants; and the Court having considered the verified complaint of the plaintiff and the exhibits attached thereto, and the memorandum of points and authorities in support thereof, all filed herein by plaintiff on June 14, 1968; and the Court having further considered the "Return to Order to Show Cause and Memorandum of Points and Authorities" filed herein by the defendants on June 24, 1968; and the Court having further considered the affidavit in support of preliminary injunction filed herein by plaintiff on June 27, 1968; and the Court having further considered the arguments of counsel; and the Court being fully advised in the premises, the Court finds:

(1) That it has jurisdiction to issue a preliminary injunction as prayed for herein for the reasons set forth in the Opinion of the Honorable Alfonso J. Zirpoli, a Judge of this Court, in the case of Petersen v. Clark 285 F.Supp. 700;

(2) That plaintiff claims he is, by reason of religious training and belief, conscientiously opposed to participation in war in any form; if so, he is not required to be subject to combatant training and service in the Armed Forces of the United States;

(3) That, from the evidence submitted to the Court in the form of the exhibits attached to plaintiff's verified complaint, there is a substantial likelihood of plaintiff's ultimate success on the merits of his aforesaid claim;

(4) That the defendants hereinafter named have refused to classify plaintiff as a conscientious objector and have issued an order to plaintiff to report for induction into the Armed Forces of the United States on July 24, 1968;

(5) That unless enjoined and restrained by this Court, the defendants hereinafter named and their agents, servants, employees and persons in active concert and participation with them will cause or attempt to cause plaintiff to be inducted into the Armed Forces of the United States before plaintiff has an opportunity to litigate, or this Court has an opportunity to pass upon, the ultimate merits of plaintiff's claim;

(6) That plaintiff will suffer irreparable injury if he is ordered to report for induction at any time pending the determination of his claim by this Court.

Therefore, it is ordered, adjudged and decreed that, pending the further order of this Court, Lewis B. Hershey, Director of Selective Service of the United States, Carlos C. Ogden, Director of Selective Service of the State of California; E. A. Mansfield, Wesley Johansen, S. Bruce Scidmore, Herman Mathis and Fred Bird, Members of Local Board No. 47, Alameda County, Selective Service System, and each of them, and their agents, servants, employees, and persons in active concert and participation with them be, and they are and each of them is,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 cases
  • Paulekas v. Clark
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of California
    • July 30, 1968
    ...the Fifth Amendment, citing recent decisions in this District in Petersen v. Clark, 291 F.Supp. 949 (N.D.Cal. 1968) and Gabriel v. Clark, 287 F.Supp. 369 (N.D.Cal.1968). (Notice of Appeal to the Supreme Court was filed by the defendants in Gabriel on July 29, 1968). Defendants have cited nu......
  • Hykel v. Federal Savings and Loan Insurance Corp., Civ. A. No. 70-1093.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania
    • June 16, 1970
    ...may challenge his classification by first submitting to induction and then instituting a habeas corpus proceeding. 13 Gabriel v. Clark, 287 F.Supp. 369 (N.D. Calif.1968). 14 The Selective Service Act stated that the "prime age group" are to be first inducted after delinquents and volunteers......
  • Hodges v. Clark
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of California
    • August 14, 1968
    ...Peterson v. Clark, 285 F.Supp. 693, 285 F. Supp. 700 (N.D.Cal., opinions of January 23, 1968, and May 28, 1968); and Gabriel v. Clark, 287 F.Supp. 369 (N.D. Cal.1968). The Court is of the view that the statute is constitutional based upon the authorities cited, and therefore the motion for ......
  • Hennessy v. SELECTIVE SERVICE LOCAL BD. NO. 21, HAVRE, MONT., Civ. No. 757.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Montana
    • September 11, 1968
    ...relies upon two cases decided by judges in the Northern District of California—Peterson v. Clark, 285 F.Supp. 698, 1968, and Gabriel v. Clark, 287 F.Supp. 369, 1968. On the other hand, in three subsequent cases—Paulekas v. Clark, Cavagnero v. Clark), 291 F.Supp. 606, and Hodges v. Clark, 29......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT