Bland v. Hartman, 15155.
| Decision Date | 03 May 1957 |
| Docket Number | No. 15155.,15155. |
| Citation | 245 F.2d 311 |
| Parties | Robert O. BLAND, Appellant, v. C. C. HARTMAN, as a Rear Admiral of the United States Navy and Commandant of the Eleventh Naval District of the United States Navy, and individually, William H. Sanders, Junior, as a Captain of the United States Navy, and individually, Joe B. Renfro, Junior, as a Commander of the United States Naval Reserve, and individually, James E. Dyer, Junior, as a Lieutenant Commander of the United States Naval Reserve and individually, and Heber S. Lewis, as a Lieutenant Commander of the United States Navy, and individually, Appellees. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
Daniel G. Marshall, Los Angeles, Cal., for appellant.
Laughlin E. Waters, U. S. Atty., Max F. Deutz, Edwin H. Armstrong, Asst. U. S. Atty., Los Angeles, Cal., for appellees.
Before FEE and CHAMBERS, Circuit Judges, and CLARK, District Judge.
This is an appeal by Bland from an order granting a motion to dismiss the complaint and denying a preliminary injunction.
The record, consisting of the complaint and a hearing on the preliminary injunction, showed Bland was a commissioned officer in the United States Naval Reserve who had served on active duty from 1942 to February 22, 1946. On the latter date, he was separated from active duty status under honorable conditions. From that date, he was placed on inactive status and held a commission as Lieutenant in the United States Naval Reserve.
On December 29, 1955, the Chief of the Bureau of Naval Personnel directed a letter to Bland, with a narrative statement of facts which indicated that, on account of conduct subsequent to his separation from active service, the retention of Bland as an officer in the Naval Reserve was not clearly consistent with the interests of national security. Bland was directed to answer certain interrogatories included therein, warned that failure to answer responsively any thereof might be held as an admission. He was informed a tender of resignation or agreement to accept discharge in lieu of undergoing further administrative processing was authorized.
Upon demand of Bland for a hearing, Admiral Hartman designated the other defendants to consider the matter, as a local security board. The hearing requested by Bland was set for January 17, 1956, where he was represented by appointed military counsel and a certain civilian lawyer.
On or about January 11, 1956, Bland mailed to Admiral Hartman a resignation from the Naval Reserve, conditioned upon his discharge under honorable conditions. It was not accepted.
Immediately thereafter, on January 12, 1956, Bland filed the complaint in the District Court in which he sought injunctions against administrative hearings and declaratory judgment that he be not deprived of his status as an honorably separated veteran of World War II. The District Court issued an order to show cause as to the preliminary injunction returnable January 19, 1956.
At the administrative hearing, on January 17, Bland refused to testify.
The papers pertaining to Bland, with recommendations of the other defendants as a board and of Hartman as District Commandant, were forwarded to the Chief of Naval Personnel in Washington, D. C., on January 18, 1956.
The matter was submitted to the District Court upon the prayer for injunctions. A hearing was held on January 19, 1956, upon affidavits, briefs and oral argument. In accordance with Rule 52 (a), Fed.Rules Civ.Proc. 28 U.S.C.A., the District Court entered findings of fact, conclusions of law and (1) an order denying the application for a preliminary injunction and (2) an order dismissing the complaint. Both of these are appealed from, and we shall consider them in order.
The District Court was correct in denying injunctive relief. The Navy did not lose the power of considering the fitness of Bland to hold a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United Steelworkers v. American Internat'l Aluminum Corp., 21406.
...v. First National Bank, 5 Cir., 1958, 255 F.2d 373; Williams v. Peters, 9 Cir., 1956, 233 F.2d 618, 16 Alaska 303; Bland v. Hartman, 9 Cir., 1957, 245 F.2d 311, 313, supports the Employer's contention that the order of January 20, 1964, was not final and 5 Deaton Truck Line, Inc. v. Local U......
-
Stebbins v. Keystone Insurance Company
...an inactive reservist deprived the Navy of jurisdiction to issue him a discharge under conditions other than honorable, Bland v. Hartman, 245 F.2d 311 (9th Cir., 1957). This court reversed a dismissal of the complaint that had been entered on grounds of res judicata and held that the judgme......
-
United States v. Frank B. Killian Company, 13753.
...dismissal as a "final decision", and so appealable. 28 U.S.C. § 1291; see Asher v. Ruppa, 7 Cir., 1949, 173 F.2d 10; cf. Bland v. Hartman, 9 Cir., 1957, 245 F.2d 311. On the whole record, we construe the order to be a dismissal of the complaint without leave to For the reasons stated, appel......
- Loc-Wood Boat & Motors v. Rockwell