293 F.Supp. 266 (S.D.N.Y. 1968), 67 Civ. 4733, Kimball v. Selective Service Local Bd. No. 15, New York

Docket Nº67 Civ. 4733.
Citation293 F.Supp. 266
Party NameJohn P. KIMBALL et al., Plaintiffs, v. SELECTIVE SERVICE LOCAL BOARD NO. 15, NEW YORK, New York, et al., Defendants.
Case DateJune 12, 1968
CourtUnited States District Courts, 2nd Circuit, Southern District of New York

Page 266

293 F.Supp. 266 (S.D.N.Y. 1968)

John P. KIMBALL et al., Plaintiffs,

v.

SELECTIVE SERVICE LOCAL BOARD NO. 15, NEW YORK, New York, et al., Defendants.

No. 67 Civ. 4733.

United States District Court, S.D. New York

June 12, 1968

Paul G. Chevigny, Alan H. Levine, New York Civil Liberties Union, New York City, for plaintiffs.

Robert M. Morgenthau, U.S. Atty., by Lawrence W. Schilling, Asst. U.S. Atty., New York City, for defendants.

MOTLEY, District Judge.

Memorandum Decision and Order on Motion for Preliminary Injunction

Plaintiff, Alexander Jack, is a full-time student at Boston University School of Theology. He, along with several other plaintiffs, brought this action seeking an adjudication that:

1) the declarations of plaintiffs as delinquents are null and void;

2) the reclassification of certain plaintiffs was null and void;

3) Selective Service Regulations §§ 1602.4, 1617.1, 1623.5 and 1642.1-1642.46 violate the United States Constitution. 1

Plaintiffs also seek a permanent injunction enjoining defendants from inducting plaintiffs into the Armed Services.

Plaintiff Jack turned in his notice of classification following an anti-Vietnam War protest demonstration in Boston, Massachusetts on October 16, 1967. Thereafter, on November 6, 1967, Jack's local draft board mailed to him a notice that it had declared him a delinquent. Subsequently, on May 27, 1968, Jack was ordered to report for induction on June 10, 1968.

On June 6, 1968, Jack moved for an order pursuant to Rule 65, Fed.R.Civ.P. staying his induction and for an order restraining his induction until the determination of this motion. Counsel for both parties appeared and after oral argument, the court orally restrained Jack's induction until the determination of his motion. 2 The motion was heard on June 10, 1968.

Page 267

Although Jack is now a full-time divinity student, he has not sought to be reclassified IV-D. He was previously classified I-A. Because Jack was not present at the hearing of this motion and because defendants did not produce his file, it is not clear whether, before this motion, his draft board was aware of his entitlement to a clear statutory exemption from military service. 50 U.S.C. App. § 456(g).

The Supreme Court has granted certiorari in Oestereich v. Local Board No. 11, 280 F.Supp. 78 (D.Wyo. Feb. 6, 1968) aff'd...

To continue reading

Request your trial
1 practice notes
  • Selective Service Litigation and the 1961 Statute
    • United States
    • Military Law Review Nbr. 48, April 1970
    • April 1, 1970
    ...were rewew-able only as a defense to a criminal prosecution or by habeas corpus after induction. '" Kimball 1. Sel. Sen. Local Bd, 293 F. Supp. 266 1S.D.S Y. 1968) , SI80 283 W. Supp. 606 iS.D S.Y. 19681few areas of the law does the doctrlne of exhaustion of sdmmstrs. tive remedies rec......
1 books & journal articles
  • Selective Service Litigation and the 1961 Statute
    • United States
    • Military Law Review Nbr. 48, April 1970
    • April 1, 1970
    ...were rewew-able only as a defense to a criminal prosecution or by habeas corpus after induction. '" Kimball 1. Sel. Sen. Local Bd, 293 F. Supp. 266 1S.D.S Y. 1968) , SI80 283 W. Supp. 606 iS.D S.Y. 19681few areas of the law does the doctrlne of exhaustion of sdmmstrs. tive remedies rec......