Ex parte Albertson, 3846.
| Decision Date | 20 December 1951 |
| Docket Number | No. 3846.,3846. |
| Citation | 103 F. Supp. 617 |
| Parties | Ex parte ALBERTSON. UNITED STATES ex rel. ALBERTSON v. TRUMAN et al. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Columbia |
J. B. Tietz, Los Angeles, Cal., and Thomas M. Cooley, Washington, D. C., for petitioner.
Charles M. Irelan, U. S. Atty., and Emory Reisinger, II Asst. U. S. Atty., for respondents.
A petition for a writ of habeas corpus was filed in this court by Leslyne Albertson on behalf of Robert L. Albertson on November 23, 1951, alleging the illegal detention of Robert L. Albertson in the United States Army. The court considered the petition fully and issued a rule to show cause to which a return has been made by the respondents.
The petitioner, a resident of California, registered with Local Board No. 135, Orange County, California, pursuant to the requirements of the Universal Military Training and Service Act of 1948, as amended, 50 U.S.C.A. Appendix, §§ 451, 473, and was classified I-A by the board on September 1, 1950. On October 28, 1950, he married the relator of this action, Leslyne Albertson. Thereafter on October 30, 1950, he notified the board informally of his change in marital status. At that time, the Act provided that married men were entitiled to a classification of III-A. The board did not reopen petitioner's case for reclassification, and on March 9, 1951, the board issued an order to the petitioner to report for induction. Petitioner obeyed that order and was subsequently inducted into the army.
The petition states that the board's refusal to reclassify Albertson as III-A after receiving notice that he had married was an arbitrary and illegal application of the Act, and therefore the order to report for induction was illegal. No attack is made upon the original classification so this inquiry will be confined to the board's refusal to act subsequent to October 30, 1950.
Habeas corpus is the proper remedy to test the legality of petitioner's induction into the army, Falbo v. United States, 320 U.S. 549, 64 S.Ct. 346, 88 L.Ed. 305; Billings v. Truesdell, 321 U.S. 542, 64 S.Ct. 737, 88 L.Ed. 917, and since he is presently outside the territorial limits of the United States, the District of Columbia is the proper forum, Koki Hirota v. MacArthur, 338 U.S. 197, 200, 69 S.Ct. 1238, 93 L.Ed. 1902, see concurring opinion of Justice Douglas. It should be noted, however, that the proper respondents herein are not located in the District of Columbia in their official capacity, but maintain their offices in the Pentagon Building in the State of Virginia. However, in this case the defendants have entered a general appearance.
The procedure to be followed in weighing the sufficiency of a petition for habeas corpus in this jurisdiction is set forth in two cases reported from our Court of Appeals, Dorsey v. Gill, 80 U.S.App.D.C. 9, 148 F.2d 857, and Stewart v. Overholser, 87...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Katz v. United States
... ... v. Epstein, 370 U.S. 713, 715, 82 S.Ct. 1294, 1296, 8 L.Ed.2d 794 (1962); see also Ex parte Poresky, 290 U.S. 30, 54 S.Ct. 3, 78 L.Ed. 152 (1933); Bell v. Waterfront Commission, 279 F.2d 853 ... Truesdell, 321 U.S. 542, 64 S.Ct. 737, 88 L.Ed. 917 (1944); United States ex rel. Albertson v. Truman, 103 F.Supp. 617 (D.C.D.C. 1951). Since Baumann is within the jurisdiction of the ... ...
-
Ex parte Fabiani
... ... Recent cases where the action of the local board was sustained upon ample evidence 105 F. Supp. 148 are Ex parte Albertson, D.C.D.C. 1951, 103 F.Supp. 617, Kirkland, D. J., and Imboden v. United States, 6 Cir., 1952, 194 F.2d 508 ... (b) Procedure ... ...
-
Lentine v. Hollingsworth, Civ. A. No. 69-650.
... ... United States (C.C.A.Ga.1969) 409 F.2d 910, 915; Ex Parte Albertson (D.C.D.C.1951) 103 F. Supp. 617, 618 ... It is suggested, however, that ... ...
- Gardner v. Delaney