Sentner v. Colarelli
Decision Date | 04 October 1956 |
Docket Number | No. 9440(1).,9440(1). |
Citation | 145 F. Supp. 569 |
Parties | Antonia SENTNER, Plaintiff, v. Henry J. COLARELLI, Officer-in-Charge of the Immigration and Naturalization Service in the City of St. Louis, Missouri, Defendant. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Missouri |
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Sydney L. Berger, Evansville, Ind., R. L. Witherspoon, St. Louis, Mo., for plaintiff.
Harry Richards, U. S. Atty., and W. Francis Murrell, Asst. U. S. Atty., St. Louis, Mo., for defendant.
Before WOODROUGH, Circuit Judge, and MOORE and HARPER, District Judges.
Plaintiff, an alien subject to a final order of deportation, brought this action against defendant, the Officer-in-Charge of the Immigration and Naturalization Service of the United States in St. Louis, to set aside, and enjoin the enforcement of, a certain "Order of Supervision" issued by defendant pursuant to Section 242(d) of the so-called McCarran-Walter Act (the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, 8 U.S.C.A. § 1252(d)). Since the complaint charged that Section 242(d), and the Order of Supervision, were unconstitutional, a three-judge court was convened.
Defendant has filed a motion to dismiss upon various grounds, and an answer. Plaintiff has filed a reply, and a motion for summary judgment. As it appears from the pleadings that no material fact is in issue, the matter will be disposed of upon these pleadings.
Plaintiff is a foreign born resident of the United States. She arrived in the United States on an immigrant visa and was admitted for permanent residence on July 26, 1914, when she was eight years old. She has been a resident of the United States for more than thirty-nine years and has lived continuously in the City of St. Louis, Missouri, for more than twenty-eight years. She was married in St. Louis on February 19, 1935, and she has lived in the same house in St. Louis since 1942, together with her husband and two minor children, all of whom are native-born citizens of the United States.
In 1949, the government started deportation proceedings against plaintiff. Those proceedings culminated in an order of deportation on April 3, 1953. At one point during those proceedings the Attorney General sought to hold plaintiff without bail, but she was released by this court upon a writ of habeas corpus. Ex parte Sentner, D.C., 94 F.Supp. 77. Otherwise, plaintiff has at all times since 1949 been free on bond of $2000, which is still outstanding. She has at all times kept herself available for hearings, and has fully complied with all terms of the bond.
A little more than six months after the entry of the order of deportation, on October 9, 1953, defendant issued an "Order of Supervision", purporting to limit plaintiff's freedom in several respects, and pointing out that violation of the terms of such an order is a criminal offense, in violation of Section 242(d). Plaintiff thereupon brought this action to declare the order void, and a preliminary restraining order was issued.
During the pendency of this action, and shortly before the argument of this case, defendant modified the "Order of Supervision", and served the new order upon plaintiff. Neither party has taken the position that this new order renders the case moot, and neither has urged that the case be dismissed upon that ground. Nor should the case be dismissed as moot, for defendant should not be permitted to frustrate judicial review simply by issuing a new order from time to time. The complaint has been formally amended to seek review of "any orders" issued pursuant to Section 242(d). It is clear that the new order is now the basis of the controversy between the parties, and the oral argument has been directed in large measure toward the new order. Since the new order differs only slightly from to old one, the simplest way to dispose of the case is to regard the complaint as having been amended to seek review specifically of the new order. That order reads as follows:
"I, Antonia Sentner, hereby acknowledge that I have read and understand the terms of this order, a copy of which I have received. I further understand that failure to comply with the terms of this order or with any of the conditions of 242(d) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, will subject me to prosecution.
("Signature typed in, but alien did not sign) _____________________________________ Antonia Sentner (Alien's signature) 5673 Cabanne Ave., St. Louis, Mo "(Signed) "Ernest W. Rosenkoetter _______________________ "Immigration Officer "Investigator "U. S. Immigration & Naturalization Service "St. Louis, Mo. (Address).
To continue reading
Request your trial-
National Center for Immigrants' Rights, Inc. v. I.N.S.
... ... Sec. 1252(d) ... In Witkovich and its companion case, Barton v. Sentner, 353 U.S. 963, 77 S.Ct ... Page 1372 ... 1047, 1 L.Ed.2d 901 (1957), the Supreme Court limited the apparently broad discretion granted the ... Sentner v. Colarelli, 145 F.Supp. 569 (E.D.Mo.1956), aff'd per curiam sub nom. Barton v. Sentner, 353 U.S. 963, 77 S.Ct. 1047, 1 L.Ed.2d 901 (1957). The supervisory ... ...
-
Browning-Ferris Indus. v. City of Maryland Heights
... ... 35 was passed. The Court will not reach constitutional claims if it can reach its decisions on other grounds. Cf., Sentner v. Colarelli, 145 F.Supp. 569, 578 (E.D.Mo.1956), aff'd, 353 U.S. 963, 77 S.Ct. 1047, 1 L.Ed.2d 901 (1957); Simpson v. Kilcher, 749 S.W.2d 386, ... ...
-
Siminoff v. Murff
... ... Witkovich, 1957, 353 U.S. 194, 199, 200-201, 77 S. Ct. 779, 1 L.Ed.2d 765; see, also, Sentner 164 F. Supp. 38 v. Colarelli, D.C.E.D.Mo.1956, 145 F. Supp. 569, affirmed per curiam sub nom. Barton v. Sentner, 1957, 353 U.S. 963, 77 S.Ct. 1047, ... ...
-
Siminoff v. Esperdy
... ... Barton v. Sentner, 353 U.S. 963, 77 S.Ct. 1047, 1 L.Ed.2d 901, affirming Sentner v. Colarelli, D.C.E.D.Mo., 145 F.Supp. 569; United States v. Witkovich, 353 U.S. 194, ... ...