Green v. LOCAL BD. NO. 87, SELEC. SERV. SYS., PLATTE CITY, MO., 19938.
| Decision Date | 08 January 1970 |
| Docket Number | No. 19938.,19938. |
| Citation | 419 F.2d 813 |
| Parties | Frank Braxton GREEN, Appellant, v. LOCAL BOARD NO. 87, SELECTIVE SERVICE SYSTEM, PLATTE CITY, MISSOURI, Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
Arthur A. Benson, II, Kansas City, Mo., for appellant.
Paul Anthony White, Asst. U. S. Atty., Kansas City, Mo., for appellee; Calvin K. Hamilton, U. S. Atty., Kansas City, Mo., with him on the brief.
Before GIBSON, LAY and BRIGHT, Circuit Judges.
Appellee Local Board No. 87, Platte City, Missouri, ordered Selective Service registrant Frank Braxton Green to report for induction into the armed services on September 17, 1969. Just preceding that date, Green examined the public rolls of the draft board and discovered the names of ten older persons classified I-A (available for military service), who had not been called for induction. Green then brought this action in district court seeking to enjoin the local board from drafting him into service out of the order of call as specified by law. Judge Duncan dismissed his suit on jurisdictional grounds, and Green appeals from that judgment of dismissal. We affirm.
Section 10(b) (3) of the Military Selective Service Act, 50 U.S.C.A. App. § 460(b) (3), in applicable part, states:
"No judicial review shall be made of the classification or processing of any registrant by local boards, appeal boards, or the President, except as a defense to a criminal prosecution instituted under section 12 of this title, after the registrant has responded either affirmatively or negatively to an order to report for induction, or for civilian work in the case of a registrant determined to be opposed to participation in war in any form: Provided, That such review shall go to the question of the jurisdiction herein reserved to local boards, appeal boards, and the President only when there is no basis in fact for the classification assigned to such registrant."
In Oestereich v. Selective Service System Local Board No. 11, 393 U.S. 233, 89 S.Ct. 414, 21 L.Ed.2d 402 (1968), the Court construed that section inapplicable to bar a pre-induction review of action of the local draft board, conceded to be unlawful, which deprived a ministerial student of his exemption from the draft as mandated by the statute. Appellant contends that the Military Selective Service Act of 1967 specifies the order of call to be followed in drafting men for the armed services. Theorizing from Oestereich, Green argues that because his local board issued an induction notice to him contrary to this statutory mandate, the federal courts should intervene and bar his induction at this time. We find this theory without merit in this case, though we assume the facts alleged to be true for the purpose of testing the trial court's dismissal.
In filing a requisition for a specified number of men to be inducted into the armed forces, the local board must call those non-volunteers, either unmarried or those married subsequent to August 26, 1965, between nineteen and twenty-six years of age in the "order of their dates of birth with the oldest being selected first." 32 C.F.R. § 1631.7. The regulations relating to the order of call within age groups comport with the command of the Military Selective Service Act of 1967 that selection of persons for training and service shall be made in an impartial manner. Section 5(a) (1), 50 U.S.C.A. App. § 455(a) (1). Cf. United States v. Gutknecht, 406 F.2d 494 (8th Cir.), cert. granted, 394 U.S. 997, 89 S.Ct. 595, 22 L.Ed.2d 775 (1969). Section 5(a) (2) of the Act, 50 U.S.C.A. App. § 455(a) (2), freezes the existing administrative regulations governing the order of call within age groups until specifically otherwise authorized by law.1
Some administrative flexibility must be preserved in carrying out the prescribed order of call. Thus, the regulations recognize that induction of a registrant may be postponed by illness or family emergencies. The State Director of the Selective...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Fein v. SELECTIVE SERV. SYS. LOCAL BD. NO. 7, YONKERS, NY
...I-A status. See 32 C.F.R. §§ 1631.7, 1632.2; United States v. Weintraub, 429 F.2d 658 (2d Cir., June 23, 1970); Green v. Local Board No. 87, 419 F.2d 813 (8th Cir. 1970). In affirming Boyd on the basis of Clark v. Gabriel, it seems to me that the court looked not to the nature of the issue ......
-
McLain v. Selective Service Local Board No. 47
...Board No. 4, 406 F.2d 631 (8th Cir. 1969), vacated and remanded 397 U.S. 47, 90 S. Ct. 811, 25 L.Ed.2d 33 (1970); Green v. Local Board No. 87, 419 F.2d 813 (8th Cir. 1970), cert. dismissed 397 U.S. 1059, 90 S.Ct. 1407, 25 L.Ed.2d 682 (1970). See also United States v. Pence, 410 F.2d 557, 55......
-
Fine v. Tarr
...111, 432 F.2d 287 (5th Cir. 1970); Stella v. Selective Service System Local Board No. 66, 427 F.2d 887 (2d Cir. 1970); Green v. Local Board No. 87, 419 F.2d 813 (8th Cir.), cert. dismissed, 397 U.S. 1059, 90 S.Ct. 1407, 25 L.Ed.2d 682 While Section 456(i) (2) does not expressly provide for ......
-
Zerillo v. Local Board No. 102, 20429.
...merits is barred by 460(b) (3). Clark v. Gabriel, supra; Burnett v. United States, 433 F.2d 1356 (5th Cir. 1970); Green v. Local Board No. 87, 419 F.2d 813 (8th Cir. 1970) cert. diss. 397 U.S. 1059, 90 S.Ct. 1407, 25 L.Ed.2d 682. Likewise, in cases like Breen and Oestereich where First Amen......