Roberson v. United States, 158-52.

• Decision Date: 05 October 1954
• Docket Number: No. 158-52.,158-52.
• Citation: Roberson v. United States, 124 F.Supp. 857, 129 Ct.Cl. 581 (Fed. Cl. 1954)
• Parties: James Joseph ROBERSON v. The UNITED STATES.
• Court: U.S. Claims Court

124 F. Supp. 857

129 Ct. Cl. 581

James Joseph ROBERSON v. The UNITED STATES.

No. 158-52.

United States Court of Claims.

October 5, 1954.

Clarence G. Pechacek, Washington, D. C., for plaintiff. Franklin E. Gill, Sioux City, Iowa, was on the brief.

John R. Franklin, Washington, D. C., with whom was Warren E. Burger, Asst. Atty. Gen., for defendant.

Before JONES, Chief Judge, and LITTLETON, WHITAKER, MADDEN and LARAMORE, Judges.

LITTLETON, Judge.

Plaintiff brings this suit under the Act of June 25, 1948, 62 Stat. 941 and 978, 28 U.S.C. § 1495 and § 2513, to recover $5,000 (the statutory maximum) on account of damages allegedly sustained by him because of his erroneous conviction of offenses against the United States and imprisonment therefor.

Defendant urges: (1) That plaintiff's conviction by a Navy General Court Martial which was later held by a United States District Court not to have had jurisdiction of plaintiff's person is not such an unjust conviction as is contemplated by the unjust conviction statute; (2) that the certificate of innocence issued by the District Court is invalid, because that court had not tried the plaintiff, and, in the habeas corpus proceedings, inquired only into the legality of plaintiff's conviction and detention; and (3) that plaintiff has failed to prove any damages.

On October 27, 1942, at the age of 18 years, plaintiff enlisted in the United States Navy. He was in combat duty as an aerial gunner in the Pacific theatre and was awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross, four Air Medals, and a Navy Unit Commendation. Plaintiff's enlistment was terminated by honorable discharge on October 3, 1945. On July 9, 1946, plaintiff reenlisted in the Navy for a period of two years.

On December 1, 1947, more than seven months before the second enlistment would have expired, plaintiff was given an honorable discharge. Coincidentally with the receipt of this discharge, plaintiff signed reenlistment papers. This procedure was followed in what proved to be an unsuccessful attempt by Navy officers to comply with a regulation designed as an incentive to reenlistment by enlisted personnel whose terms of enlistment were approaching completion. Incentives to such reenlistment included a substantial cash bonus, some additional leave, and travel expenses.

On the morning of December 4, 1947, three days after plaintiff had signed reenlistment papers, he returned to barracks after a period of liberty. He had been engaged in an all-night card game and had been drinking beer. An officer unhappily chose this particular occasion to tell plaintiff that compliance with the reenlistment regulations had not and could not be had in plaintiff's case and that therefore plaintiff would not receive his bonus, leave, or travel allowance. An altercation arose between plaintiff and the officer during which plaintiff must have expressed himself more forcefully than Navy custom sanctions in exchanges between enlisted men and commissioned officers, for the officer ordered plaintiff under barracks arrest and to undergo a test for intoxication. Plaintiff returned to his barracks, and, in view of what the officer had told him about the reenlistment, plaintiff gathered up his gear, including his honorable discharge papers dated December 1, 1947, and, without advising or consulting with anyone, departed for home.

Nearly four months later, on March 26, 1948, plaintiff was tried and convicted by a Navy General Court Martial on charges of drunkenness, disobeying the lawful order of his superior officer, desertion, conduct to the prejudice of good order and discipline, breaking arrest, and unauthorized absence, all of which offenses were alleged by the Navy to have occurred after December 1, 1947 (the date on which he received his honorable discharge and signed the ineffectual reenlistment papers). The court martial sentenced plaintiff to be confined for a period of four years and to be dishonorably discharged.

Upon review by the Secretary of the Navy, the period of plaintiff's confinement was reduced to two years, and a bad conduct discharge was substituted for the dishonorable discharge. Thereafter, upon the recommendation of the Navy Sentence Review and Clemency Board, approved by the Acting Secretary of the Navy, an order was issued that plaintiff be restored to duty if his conduct was satisfactory on six months' probation.

Plaintiff was imprisoned from March 26, 1948 to December 15, 1948, a period of 8 months and 19 days. The end of his confinement came as a result of his release from the Navy Disciplinary Barracks, Portsmouth, New Hampshire, for restoration to duty in Boston, Massachusetts, subject to probation. However, instead of reporting for duty, plaintiff, relying on his December 1, 1947 honorable discharge, again went home.

Some nine months later, on September 19, 1949, plaintiff was again arrested and placed in confinement by the Navy on a charge of desertion. He remained in prison until December 8, 1949, a period of 2 months and 18 days, when he was released upon order of the District Court of the United States for the Northern District of Illinois in habeas corpus proceedings. U. S. ex rel. Roberson v. Keating, D.C., 121 F.Supp. 477. The District Court found and held that plaintiff had received a valid honorable discharge on December 1, 1947, which placed his person beyond the jurisdiction of the Navy to try him for acts committed subsequent to that date.

Thereafter, plaintiff applied to the same District Court for a certificate of innocence fulfilling the requirements of section 2513 of title 28 of the United States Code, in order that he might pursue his remedy under the provisions of section 1495 of that title in the United States Court of Claims. On February 19, 1952, Judge Philip L. Sullivan issued a document entitled "Certificate of Innocence" which recited that application therefor had been made under section 2513 for the purpose of suit under section 1495 of title 28. After reviewing certain facts relative to the Navy court martial and the issuance of the writ of habeas corpus, the judge closed with the following statement:

"Now Therefore, pursuant to said Section 2513 of Title 28, I hereby certify that the relator was not guilty of the offenses of which he was convicted, and for which he served confinement for eight months, and that said conviction was set aside by this Court and held to be void, and that the acts, deeds or omissions of the relator in connection with such charge constituted no offense against the United States, or any State, Territory or the District of Columbia, and that the relator did not by his misconduct or negligence cause or bring about his own prosecution."

On April 8, 1952, plaintiff filed his petition in the Court of Claims asking for relief under the provisions of title 28, sections 1495 and 2513 of the United States Code.¹

Defendant first urges that the conviction of plaintiff by a Navy General Court Martial, which was later held by a United States District Court not to have had jurisdiction of plaintiff's person, was not such an unjust conviction as was contemplated by sections 1495 and 2513 of title 28. The only case cited by either party directly in point on the question is McLean v. United States, D.C.1947, 73 F.Supp. 775. Defendant concedes that the holding in that case is squarely against defendant's position herein, but urges that the decision is erroneous.

In McLean v. United States, supra, the plaintiff, suing in the District Court for damages under 18 U.S.C. §§ 729, 730,² had been convicted of manslaughter by United States Navy Court Martial and sentenced to five years imprisonment and to a dishonorable discharge. In his District Court action plaintiff alleged that his conviction had been set aside by the Judge Advocate General of the Navy who had adjudged that plaintiff was not guilty of the crime of which he had been convicted, that his conduct in connection with the charge did not constitute a crime against the United States, etc., and that he had not in any way contributed in bringing about his own arrest and conviction. The government contended that the unjust conviction statute did not cover court martial convictions. The District Court held that the statute does cover court martial convictions as well as civilian court convictions because (1) the substance of the statute is that any person unjustly convicted of an offense against the United States may maintain suit against the United States for damages sustained as a result of such unjust conviction and imprisonment; (2) that a person tried by Navy Court Martial is tried for an offense against the United States because the basis for any prosecution in such proceeding is necessarily a violation of the Articles for the Government of the Navy enacted by Act of Congress; and (3) that a violation of an Act of Congress is an offense against the United States. The court also held that a Navy Court Martial and the review of its action by the Judge Advocate General are judicial proceedings within the meaning of the word "court" as used in the statute, especially when the purpose of the statute is kept in mind. At pages 778 and 779, of 73 F. Supp., Judge Wyche stated:

"This Act is a remedial act designed by a fair-minded government as a means of at least partially righting an irreparable wrong done to one of its citizens. It has the beneficent purpose of attempting to compensate, as well as money can compensate for such an injury, the plaintiff for the loss of his liberty through an error on the part of his government. One convicted in a court martial is just as effectively deprived of his liberty as one convicted in the district court of the United States. The same sovereign is responsible for the wrong that has brought about his suffering. It is, therefore, my opinion that the Act covers a conviction in a court martial."

We find nothing in the legislative history of the basic legislation, Act of May...