Arnheiter v. Chafee, 23825.
| Decision Date | 24 November 1970 |
| Docket Number | No. 23825.,23825. |
| Parties | Marcus A. ARNHEITER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. John H. CHAFEE, U. S. Secretary of the Navy, Does One through Ten, inclusive, Defendants-Appellees. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
Marvin E. Lewis (argued), of Lewis, Rouda & Winchell, San Francisco, Cal., for plaintiff-appellant.
Leonard Schaitman (argued), Washington, D. C., Ralph A. Fine, Morton A. Fine, William D. Ruckelshau, Asst. Atty. Gen., Washington, D. C., James L. Browning, U. S. Atty., San Francisco, Cal., for defendants-appellees.
Before CHAMBERS, WRIGHT and TRASK, Circuit Judges.
Appellant, a lieutenant commander of the United States Navy, brought action against the Secretary of the Navy for a declaratory judgment and for relief in the nature of mandamus.
Three months after being given command of a destroyer escort ship, assigned to duty in waters off Vietnam, appellant was relieved of command on March 31, 1966. A hearing was held, with appellant present and represented by counsel. The record was forwarded to the Chief of Naval Personnel who sustained the action, as did the Secretary of the Navy. This action was brought in December 1967, seeking to have the district court direct the Secretary of the Navy to convene a court of inquiry "or other appropriate hearing pursuant to U. S. Naval Regulations" to investigate the circumstances surrounding his relief from command. Appellant remains in active Navy service.
After reviewing the voluminous record, the district court concluded that the Navy's actions were internal, administrative matters involving the judgment of Naval Command concerning duty assignment and promotion under Vietnam War conditions, that the Navy acted in substantial conformance with regulations and well within the bounds of fundamental due process, and granted a motion for summary judgment of dismissal. Arnheiter v. Ignatius, 292 F.Supp. 911 (N.D.Cal.1968).
We affirm so much of the district court's opinion as holds that the federal courts have no jurisdiction.
Orloff v. Willoughby, 345 U.S. 83, 93, 73 S. Ct. 534, 540, 97 L.Ed. 842.
See also E....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Helton v. United States
...407 (1975); Covington v. Anderson, 487 F.2d 660 (9th Cir. 1973); Mindes v. Seamen, 453 F.2d 197 (5th Cir. 1971); Arnheiter v. Chafee, 435 F.2d 691 (9th Cir. 1970); Doe v. Alexander, 510 F.Supp. 900 Here, plaintiff seeks judicial review of his active duty assignment following completion of h......
-
Cortright v. Resor, 70 C 909.
...259 U.S. 326, 42 S.Ct. 505, 66 L.Ed. 965 (1922); Reaves v. Ainsworth, 219 U.S. 269, 31 S.Ct. 230, 55 L.Ed. 225 (1911); Arnheiter v. Chafee, 435 F.2d 691 (9th Cir. 1970); United States ex rel. Schonbrun v. Commanding Officer, 403 F.2d 371 (2d Cir. 1968), cert. denied, 394 U.S. 929, 89 S.Ct. ......
-
Wallace v. Chappell
...v. United States, 586 F.2d 667 (9th Cir. 1978), cert. denied, 441 U.S. 943, 99 S.Ct. 2161, 60 L.Ed.2d 1045 (1979); Arnheiter v. Chafee, 435 F.2d 691 (9th Cir. 1970); Covington v. Anderson, 487 F.2d 660 (9th Cir. 1973). Our cases do not, however, make clear which military decisions are revie......
-
Johnson v. Hoffman
...447 F.2d 1085 (3d Cir. 1971) (court refused to review determination that reservist report for active service); Arnheiter v. Chafee, 435 F.2d 691 (9th Cir. 1970) (court refused to inquire concerning officer's relief from Nonetheless, courts have reviewed military decisions to determine "what......