Schackman v. Arnebergh

• Court: U.S. Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: PER CURIAM
• Citation: Schackman v. Arnebergh, 387 U.S. 427, 87 S.Ct. 1622, 18 L.Ed.2d 865 (1967)
• Decision Date: 29 May 1967
• Docket Number: No. 1186,1186
• Parties: Harry SCHACKMAN et al. v. Roger ARNEBERGH

387 U.S. 427

87 S.Ct. 1622

18 L.Ed.2d 865

Harry SCHACKMAN et al.

v. Roger ARNEBERGH.

No. 1186.

May 29, 1967.

-Burton Marks, for appellants.

Roger Arnebergh, pro se, Bourke Jones and Robert B. Burns, for appellees Arnebergh and others.

Harold W. Kennedy, George Wakefield and Martin E. Weekes, for appellees Younger and others.

Thomas C. Lynch, Atty. Gen. of California, pro se, and A. Barry Cappello, Deputy Atty. Gen., for appellee Lynch.

PER CURIAM.

Appellants seek review by this Court of the refusal by the District Court to convene a three-judge District Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2281—2284. We have held that such review is available in the Court of Appeals, Idlewild Bon oy age Liquor Corp. v. Epstein, 370 U.S. 713, 82 S.Ct. 1294, 8 L.Ed.2d 794, and not in this Court. Buchanan v. Rhodes, 385 U.S. 3, 87 S.Ct. 33, 17 L.Ed.2d 3.

The motion to dismiss is granted and the appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

Motion granted.