Sorenson v. Williams

• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania
• Writing for the Court: Fred C. Aldridge, Jr., Philadelphia, Pa., for petitioner
• Citation: Sorenson v. Williams, 207 F.Supp. 184 (E.D. Pa. 1962)
• Decision Date: 18 May 1962
• Docket Number: Misc. No. 2398.
• Parties: Ralph Trent SORENSON v. Lt. Robert B. WILLIAMS, Commanding Officer, United States Army Examination Station and Induction Center, 401 North Broad Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

207 F. Supp. 184

Ralph Trent SORENSON v. Lt. Robert B. WILLIAMS, Commanding Officer, United States Army Examination Station and Induction Center, 401 North Broad Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

Misc. No. 2398.

United States District Court E. D. Pennsylvania.

May 18, 1962.

Fred C. Aldridge, Jr., Philadelphia, Pa., for petitioner.

Drew J. T. O'Keefe, U. S. Atty., Mabel G. Turner, Asst. U. S. Atty., Philadelphia, Pa., for respondent.

JOHN W. LORD, Jr., District Judge.

Petitioner claims that he has been illegally inducted into the armed forces of the United States. He asks this Court to declare that the order under which he was inducted was invalid and void, and to order his release from the United States Army.

The facts have been stipulated and — with the omission of exhibits — are set out below.

STIPULATION

"1. Petitioner is an individual residing at 800 Lafayette Road, Bryn Mawr, Pennsylvania.

"2. Prior to July, 1961, petitioner's legal residence was Burlington, Iowa, where he was registered with Local Board No. 13-29 of the Selective Service System pursuant to the Universal Military Training and Service Act.

"3. Prior to January of 1962, petitioner was classified in the following classifications by Local Board No. 13-29 on the following dates:

    October 4, 1954           I-A
                    September 13, 1955       II-S
                    August 20, 1956          II-S
                    June 2, 1958              I-A
                    September 15, 1958        I-A
                    February 12, 1959         I-S-C
                    August 10, 1959          II-S
                    May 17, 1960             II-A
                     until February 1961
                    February 6, 1961          I-A
                    October 12, 1961          I-A
                    December 19, 1961         I-A
                     by Appeal Board
                

"On each of the above occasions, petitioner was duly notified by Local Board No. 13-29 of the classification in which he had been placed.

"4. By telegram sent on January 8, 1962, and by letter mailed on January 8, 1962 and received on January 11, 1962, petitioner notified Local Board No. 13-29 that he was a Conscientious Objector and requested that he be sent SSS Form No. 150 (Special Form for Conscientious Objector).

"5. On January 10, 1962, Local Board No. 13-29 mailed petitioner SSS Form No. 150, which petitioner received on January 12, 1962.

"6. By letter dated January 11, 1962 Exhibit A Local Board No. 13-29 notified petitioner that the information contained in his telegram of January 8, 1962, to the effect that he is a Conscientious Objector, was considered by them at their meeting on January 10, 1962, and that they felt a change in his classification was not justified since his file contained information that he had previously attempted to enlist in the Armed Services. They also stated that, on these grounds, they declined to reopen and consider his case.

"7. On January 15, 1962, Local Board No. 13-29 mailed to petitioner Order to Report for Induction on February 6, 1962.

"8. On January 16, 1962, petitioner mailed completed SSS Form No. 150 to Local Board No. 13-29 together with a letter notifying Local Board No. 13-29 that he appealed their decision and requesting that his classification be reopened and that he be given the classification of I-O. He also requested that he be permitted to appear personally to justify his claim as a Conscientious Objector Exhibit B. By letter of the same date, plaintiff advised Col. Glen R. Bowles, Iowa State Director of Selective Service, of the situation and requested that he advise Local Board No. 13-29 of the proper procedural steps to be followed in the matter.

"9. On January 17, 1962, petitioner received the Order to Report for Induction which had been mailed by Local Board No. 13-29 on January 15, 1962. By letters of January 17, 1962, petitioner notified Local Board No. 13-29 and Col. Glen R. Bowles that he believed the Order to be illegal, demanded its cancellation, reinstated his demand for a hearing and reiterated his appeal of the decision of Local Board 13-29.

"10. By letter dated January 22, 1962 Exhibit C, Col. Glen R. Bowles wrote petitioner that the actions of Local Board No. 13-29 were in accord with the Selective Service Regulations and advised him to report for induction as ordered.

"11. By letter dated January 30, 1962, Local Board No. 13-29 advised petitioner that they had considered SSS Form No. 150 and his subsequent correspondence and concluded that reopening of his classification was not warranted Exhibit D. By his letters of February 3, 1962, petitioner advised Local Board No. 13-29 and Col. Glen R. Bowles that he appealed the decision of the Local Board.

"12. By letter of February 5, 1962 Exhibit E, Local Board No. 13-29 advised petitioner that he did not have any right of appeal. By letter dated February 6, 1962 Exhibit F, Col. Glen R. Bowles advised petitioner that he found no justification for further action.

"13. Having been transferred at his own request from Local Board No. 13-29 in Burlington, Iowa to Local Board No. 107 in Bryn Mawr, Pennsylvania for delivery to an induction station, petitioner received Order for Transferred Man to Report for Induction Exhibit G requiring him to report to Local Board No. 107 for induction at 6:30 A.M. on February 27, 1962.

"14. On February 20, 1962, petitioner instituted suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Civil Action No. 31032 Sorenson v. Selective Service System, 203 F.Supp. 786, seeking an injunction to restrain certain Selective Service officials from enforcing the Order to Report for Induction on February 27, 1962. By opinion dated April 6, 1962, the Honorable John W. Lord, Jr., J., dismissed petitioner's Complaint for want of jurisdiction.

"15. By letter dated April 13, 1962, Local Board No. 107 ordered petitioner to report in Bryn Mawr, Pennsylvania, for induction at 6:40 A.M. on April 23, 1962 Exhibit H.

"16. By letter dated April 17, 1962, Local Board No. 13-29 ordered petitioner to report in Burlington, Iowa, for induction at 8:00 A.M. on April 23, 1962 Exhibit I.

"17. Petitioner reported to Local Board No. 107 on April 23, 1962 as ordered and was transported from Local Board No. 107 in Bryn Mawr, Pennsylvania to the United States Army Examination Station and Induction Center, 401 North Broad Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania for induction.

"18. Defendant, Lt. Robert B. Williams, is the Commanding Officer in charge of said Center, and had charge of and was in custody of petitioner at the time of issuance and service of the Writ herein issued.

"19. Immediately prior to submitting to induction petitioner handed an Army officer at the Induction Center a letter dated April 23, 1962 addressed to Lt. Robert B. Williams Exhibit J.

"20. After the delivery of said letter, petitioner submitted to induction into the U. S. Army at 3:08 P.M. on April 23, 1962 by answering the roll call, taking one step forward as requested, and taking the following oath:

"`I, Ralph Trent Sorenson, do solemnly swear that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the United States of America; that I will serve them honestly and faithfully against all their enemies whomsoever; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice.'

"21. Immediately thereafter, petitioner's attorneys filed a petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, Miscellaneous Action No. 2398, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

"22. At 3:35 P.M. on April 23, 1962, the Honorable John W. Lord, Jr., District Judge ordered the issuance of a Writ of Habeas Corpus which Writ was served on the defendant in whose custody the petitioner was at approximately 4:00 P.M. on the same day. Petitioner was released on his recognizance pursuant to the Writ."

After examination of the petition, the stipulation and exhibits, briefs and other supporting documents, and after hearing oral argument on May 3, 1962, this Court is of opinion that petitioner is not entitled to the relief which he seeks.

The opinion of this Court in Civil Action No. 31032 (see Par. 14, Stipulation) dealt with certain of the legal principles presently involved, and in that connection said:

"Section 1625.4 of the Selective Service Regulations provides that a local board may refuse to reopen a registrant's classification when it finds that such facts would not result in a change of classification. 32 C.F.R. § 1625. On the other hand, there is a statutory provision which provides a special kind of appeal in the conscientious objector cases. 50 U.S.C.A.App. § 456(j); See Witmer v. United States, 348 U.S. 375, 376-377, 75 S.Ct. 392, 99 L.Ed. 428 (1954). When a registrant comes within the provisions of that statute, his privilege cannot be defeated by a procedural regulation such as Selective Service Regulation § 1625.4. United States v. Underwood, 151 F.Supp. 874, 876 (E.D. Pa.1955).

"When there is no apparent substance to the late-coming claim of conscientious objection, however, a local board's action in refusing to reopen is not arbitrary or capricious. United States v. Wilson, 132 F.Supp. 485, 492 (W.D.La.1955); United States v. Schoebel, 201 F.2d 31, 32 (7th Cir., 1953). There is nothing in the cases to show that the mere request for a form 150, on the eve of induction, automatically invokes the special statutory review. Keene v. United States, 266 F.2d 378, cases collected p. 383 (10th Cir., 1959)."

The rare cases in which Local Board action in refusing to reopen has been overridden by a Court of the United States are discussed in the same Opinion, No. 31032. In such cases there has at least been a strong showing of merit on behalf of the registrant in addition to circumstances throwing doubt on the regularity of the Local Board's action.

The present case contains no such elements. Petitioner's position seems sterile and technical in the extreme. For instance, he had been classified I-A as early as October 4, 1954. Thereafter he...