Carey v. Local Board No. 2, Hartford, Connecticut
| Decision Date | 16 June 1969 |
| Docket Number | Docket 33418.,No. 612,612 |
| Citation | 412 F.2d 71 |
| Parties | James CAREY, Appellee, v. LOCAL BOARD NO. 2, HARTFORD, CONNECTICUT, Appellant. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit |
Jon O. Newman, U. S. Atty. for District of Connecticut, Hartford, Conn., for appellant.
John Griffiths, New Haven, Conn. (Karl Fleischmann, Hartford, Conn., on the brief), for appellee.
Before MOORE, FRIENDLY and HAYS, Circuit Judges.
James Carey, the plaintiff-appellee herein, was graduated from college in June, 1965. Following two years of graduate study at Oxford University in England, he entered Yale Law School in September, 1967. Throughout his undergraduate years, his period of study at Oxford and his first year at law school, Carey was classified II-S by his draft board, Selective Service Local Board No. 2 of Hartford, Connecticut. On June 11, 1968, Carey was re-classified I-A and upon appeal this classification was affirmed by the appeal board two months later. On October 14, 1968, while he was satisfactorily pursuing a fulltime course of instruction in his second year at Yale Law School, Carey was ordered to report for induction into the armed forces. Upon receipt of his immediate written request for deferral until the end of the academic year, Carey's draft board, on October 23, 1968 postponed his induction, but only until February, 1969. On January 15, 1969, Carey wrote a second letter requesting deferment until the end of the academic year but the draft board denied this request.
On January 30, 1969, Carey sought and obtained a temporary restraining order from the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut, enjoining the draft board from inducting him into the armed services. On February 13, Carey filed his complaint together with a motion for a preliminary injunction. A day later the appellant (local board) filed a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction and both motions were orally argued before the district court. Shortly thereafter the district court, Blumenfeld, J., filed a memorandum of decision ordering the appellant to classify Carey I-S. On February 19, 1969, judgment was entered in accordance with Judge Blumenfeld's opinion and on March 13, 1969, appellant filed a notice of appeal.
For the reasons set forth in Marsano v. Laird, et al., 412 F.2d 65 (decided June 16, 1969), decided today by this court, we hold that Carey has a clear statutory right to a I-S classification and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
City of Hartford v. Hills, Civ. No. H-75-258.
...by administrative action, is not favored. Carey v. Local Board No. 2, Hartford, Connecticut, 297 F.Supp. 252, 260 (D.Conn.), aff'd, 412 F.2d 71 (2d Cir. 1969).47 The defendants correctly observe that HUD has not waived the entire HAP, but merely one of the elements that go into the communit......
-
Mattern v. Weinberger
...1323, 1330 (3d Cir., 1974); Carey v. Local Board No. 2, Hartford, Connecticut, 297 F.Supp. 252, 255 (D.Conn.), aff'd per curiam, 412 F.2d 71 (2d Cir., 1969). 12 Acceptance of the Secretary's reasoning would lead to an oddly circular result if mandamus jurisdiction were unavailable because, ......
-
Burnett v. Tolson
...1009, 1019-1022, 1051-1054 (1972). 5 E. g., Carey v. Local Board No. 2, Hartford, Conn., 297 F.Supp. 252, n. 3 (D.Conn.), aff'd, 412 F.2d 71 (2d Cir. 1969). See generally 3 K. Davis, Administrative Law Treaties § 23.09 (Supp. 1965). When Congress was considering the enactment of 28 U.S.C. §......
-
Morris v. Weinberger
...1323, 1330 (3d Cir., 1974); Carey v. Local Board No. 2, Hartford, Connecticut, 297 F.Supp. 252, 255 (D. Conn.), aff'd per curiam, 412 F.2d 71 (2d Cir., 1969). Acceptance of the Secretary's reasoning would lead to an oddly circular result — if mandamus jurisdiction were unavailable because, ......