Armstrong v. United States, 19686.
| Citation | 354 F.2d 648 |
| Decision Date | 28 December 1965 |
| Docket Number | No. 19686.,19686. |
| Parties | Harry F. ARMSTRONG, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee. |
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit) |
Harry F. Armstrong, in pro. per.
Manuel L. Real, U. S. Atty., Donald A. Fareed, Asst. U. S. Atty., Stephen D. Miller, Asst. U. S. Atty., Los Angeles, Cal., for appellees.
Before CHAMBERS, BARNES, and ELY, Circuit Judges.
This appeal is from the District Court's judgment dismissing appellant's suit for injunctive relief. The amended complaint alleged that on December 12, 1963, the Secretary of Defense of the United States issued his order that the Naval Repair Facility of the United States Naval Station at San Diego, California, be closed. At that time and prior thereto, appellant was employed as a service electrician at the Repair Facility, and he alleged that his suit was a "class action" brought by him on behalf of all employees affected by the Secretary's order. Named as defendants in the suit to enjoin the closure were the United States of America, its Secretary of Defense, its Secretary of the Navy, and the Commanding Officer of the Naval Repair Facility.
In our court, the appellant makes two contentions: (1) That § 125 of Title 10 U.S.C.,1 the authority under which the Secretary of Defense made the challenged order, is unconstitutional in that it unlawfully delegates legislative powers; (2) That if the section is not unconstitutional, the Secretary's order is invalid because of his failure to comply with the requirements of the section.
We are convinced that the District Court made the proper determination and affirm its judgment for the reasons stated in its reported opinion. Armstrong v. United States, 233 F.Supp. 188 (S.D.Cal.1964). It is true that the Secretary did not report "details * * * to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and House of Representatives" before he directed the closing of the facility, as the section requires him to do before he transfers, reassigns, consolidates, or abolishes "a function, power, or duty vested" in his Department. In the light of the legislative history of the section,2 we do not believe that a fair interpretation of its terms enables us to classify a Naval Repair Facility as "a function, power, or duty". If, by torture or ordinary meaning, a naval repair facility could be defined as a "function", it would be a "function" which might be supervised by the Secretary, but it would not be "vested" in him or...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ponce v. Housing Authority of County of Tulare
...of a so-called "ministerial" or non-discretionary act. Armstrong v. United States, 233 F.Supp. 188 (D.C.Cal.1964) affirmed 354 F.2d 648 (9th Cir. 1965) cert. denied 384 U.S. 946, 86 S.Ct. 1472, 16 L.Ed.2d 543. Generally, however, a district court has no power to direct or influence the exer......
-
James v. Ambrose
...v. United States Air Force, 280 F.Supp. 478 (E.D. Pa. 1968); Armstrong v. United States, 233 F.Supp. 188 (S.D. Cal. 1964), aff'd 354 F.2d 648 (9th Cir. 1965), cert. denied, 384 U.S. 964, 86 S.Ct. 1472, 16 L.Ed.2d 543 (1966). [5] In the instant case, plaintiff seeks to have this Court compel......
-
James v. Ambrose
...v. United States Air Force, 280 F.Supp. 478 (E.D.Pa.1968); Armstrong v. United States, 233 F.Supp. 188 (S.D.Cal.1964), aff'd, 354 F.2d 648 (9th Cir. 1965), cert. denied, 384 U.S. 946, 86 S.Ct. 1472, 16 L.Ed.2d 543 In the instant case, plaintiff seeks to have this Court compel defendants to ......
-
Nelson v. Kleppe, Civ. No. 1-74-209.
...Mandamus does not lie to review the discretionary acts of officials. Armstrong v. United States, 233 F.Supp. 188 (D.C.Cal.1964), aff'd, 354 F.2d 648, cert. den., 384 U.S. 946, 86 S.Ct. 1472, 16 L.Ed.2d 543; Southport Land & Commercial Co. v. Udall, 244 F.Supp. 172 (D.C.Cal.1964). However, s......