Cuadra v. Resor, 26510.
| Decision Date | 08 December 1970 |
| Docket Number | No. 26510.,26510. |
| Citation | 437 F.2d 1211 |
| Parties | Richard CUADRA, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Stanley R. RESOR, as Secretary of the Army et al., Appellees. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
Armando M. Menocal, III (argued), Alex Saldamando, Michael S. Sorgen, San Francisco, Cal., for plaintiff and appellant.
Richard Locke (argued), Asst. U. S. Atty., James L. Browning, Jr., U. S. Atty., San Francisco, Cal., for appellees.
Before CHAMBERS, JERTBERG and TRASK, Circuit Judges.
Cuadra's second application for hardship discharge recited a previous similar application.
Army regulations, under such circumstances, required the army to get Selective Service advice before decision. This was not done. After decision, denying the discharge, with the issue in court, the army then sought Selective Service advice. Selective Service recommended against the discharge. The army reaffirmed its decision.
We think that the patchwork chinking up was wrong and the appellant was entitled to full de novo consideration.
Here the army has trapped itself in the mesh of its own regulations.
The army determinations should be vacated and de novo consideration promptly had by Selective Service and the army. Alternatively the army may require petitioner to promptly reapply and process that application without res judicata implications.
The motion to dismiss is denied. The case is remanded for proceedings consistent herewith.
The present restraining order will continue for four weeks from the date of filing of this opinion.
Our decision is effective immediately.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Watkins v. United States Army
...by MG Elton sometime after December was not a prior express exemption as is contemplated by the regulation. In Cuadra v. Resor, 437 F.2d 1211 (9th Cir. 1970) (per curiam), the Army's failure to follow its own regulation, which required it to obtain Selective Service advice before acting on ......
-
Vallecillo v. David
...own regulations. Allgood v. Kenan, 470 F.2d 1071, 1073 (9th Cir. 1972); Feliciano v. Laird, 426 F.2d 424 (2d Cir. 1970); Cuadra v. Resor, 437 F.2d 1211 (9th Cir. 1970). Where the military violates its own regulations, and a clear cut duty imposed by a regulation is not performed, mandamus m......
-
Allgood v. Kenan
...of such applications is in accordance with its own regulations. Feliciano v. Laird, 426 F.2d 424 (2d Cir.1970); Cuadra v. Resor, 437 F.2d 1211 (9th Cir.1970). On the facts of this case, judicial review is impermissible. Not all military regulations exist for the benefit of the soldier or gr......
-
NLRB v. Welcome-American Fertilizer Company
...unjust discrimination and deny adequate notice contrary to fundamental concepts of fair play and due process. See, e. g., Cuadra v. Resor, 437 F.2d 1211 (9th Cir. 1970); Feliciano v. Laird, 426 F.2d 424 (2nd Cir. 1970). This concept is applicable to jurisdictional guidelines promulgated by ......