In re Hartman

• Decision Date: 04 May 1916
• Citation: 232 F. 797
• Parties: In re HARTMAN.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of Iowa

232 F. 797

In re HARTMAN.

United States District Court, N.D. Iowa, Eastern Division.

May 4, 1916

M. C Matthews, of Dubuque, Iowa, for petitioner.

F. A O'Connor, U.S. Atty., of New Hampton, Iowa, and Seth Thomas, Asst. U.S. Atty., of Ft. Dodge, Iowa, for the United States.

REED District Judge.

The petition for naturalization is in due form, and states all essential facts, which, if proven, would entitle the petitioner to be admitted to citizenship. The United States however, appears by its United States Attorney and Assistant United States Attorney, and files an answer to the petition as follows:

'Comes now F. A. O'Connor, United States Attorney for the Northern District of Iowa, and for and on behalf of said United States and at the suggestion of the Chief Naturalization Examiner of the Bureau of Naturalization of the Department of Labor, makes the following answer to the petition in the above cause, as follows:

'That in addition to the denial of the statements in the applicant's petition filed herein, implied by operation of law, the United States says that on the 2d day of November, 1914, said petitioner filed a petition in the district court of Iowa, in and for Dubuque county, to be naturalized, and that on the 27th day of May, 1915, said cause came on to be and was heard by said court upon said petition and proof, and that it then appeared that the said petitioner had failed to establish his good moral character as by law required, and his said petition was then and there denied by said court, and said petition was dismissed, and a decree in accordance therewith was entered, which decree has not been appealed from or set aside by said court.

'Wherefore the United States says that the matters and things contained in the present petition have heretofore been adjudicated by the said district court of Iowa, in and for Dubuque county, and are now res adjudicata as between the petitioner and the United States of America, they being the identical parties to both proceedings involving the same matters, and the United States relies upon and expressly pleads said adjudication as a bar to this petition, and as a bar to the relief sought thereunder.' To this answer the petitioner demurs upon the following grounds:

'That the facts stated and alleged therein are not an adjudication or bar to the petition of the petitioner herein. That the statutes of the United States in relation to the naturalization of aliens do not provide for any prohibition as to the number of petitions that may be filed or sought to be acted upon, and there is no provision in said statutes that prevents a petitioner for naturalization from filing more than one petition, or having more than one hearing upon a petition. That the denial of a petition for naturalization in the state court is not such an adjudication as would bar a subsequent application or petition in the District Court of the United States.'

It is the contention of the petitioner that a proceeding under the statutes of the United States for the admission of an alien to citizenship is not a case, suit, or cause of action within the meaning of article 3, Sec. 2, of the Constitution of the United States, and is not, therefore, such a proceeding that a denial of the petition for naturalization is an adjudication thereof that will bar another proceeding by the same petitioner upon the same facts upon which the former proceeding was denied; and he cites United States v. Dolla, 177 F. 101, 100 C.C.A. 521, 21 Ann.Cas. 665 (C.C.A. 5th Circuit) in support of this contention.

The government maintains the contrary, and that such such a proceeding is a case, or cause of action, within the meaning of the section of the Constitution above cited, and that a determination of the question involved in such a proceeding, whether favorable to or adverse to the petitioner, is an adjudication which determines the rights of the parties in such a proceeding, and until set aside on appeal or some other method of review, or by direct action to annul the same upon the ground of illegality or fraud in procuring the same, is a bar to another action upon the same facts determined in the prior proceedings; and it cites the following authorities: In re Centi (D.C.) 217 F. 833; In re Guliano (D.C.) 156 F. 420; In re Bodek (C.C.) 63 F. 813; In re Manning (D.C.) 209 F. 499, and other cases.

That a judgment or decree admitting an alien to citizenship may be reviewed upon appeal or writ of error from a District Court of the United States, at least, granting the same, is recognized by the Court of Appeals of this Circuit in the following cases: United States v. Ojala, 182 F. 51, 104 C.C.A. 491; United States v. Iver Engebretsen Ness, 230 F. 950, . . . C.C.A. . . ., affirming (D.C.) 217 F. 169; United States v. Christopher James Davis Deans, 230 F. 957, . . . C.C.A. . . ., affirming In re Deans (D.C.) 208 F. 1018.

United States v. Dolla, 177 F. 101, 100 C.C.A. 521, 21 Ann.Cas. 665, cited by the petitioner, seems to have been decided upon the ground that a naturalization proceeding is not a case, suit, cause, or controversy within the meaning of the section of the Constitution of the United States above referred to, which reads in this way:

'Sec. 2. The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority; to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and

...