United States v. Willoughby, 2957.
| Decision Date | 09 January 1952 |
| Docket Number | No. 2957.,2957. |
| Citation | 104 F. Supp. 14 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES ex rel. ORLOFF v. WILLOUGHBY et al. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Washington |
John Caughlan and Siegfried Hesse, Seattle, Wash., for petitioner.
John E. Belcher, Asst. U. S. Atty., Seattle, Wash., and Robert O. Hillis, Maj. J. A. G. D., U. S. Army, Seattle, Wash., for respondent.
First of all, the Court will say that he feels that the Petitioner here is clearly within his rights in coming into Court seeking a writ of habeas corpus to determine his status.
The question is one which is not free from doubt and there is no other method whereby he may determine whether or not he is legally held in the Army.
The facts in this matter have been agreed upon, and appear from the pleadings, exhibits and stipulations of counsel.
The Court has sought by some independent research, anticipating the questions that might arise in this case, to determine the law applicable and has come to a conclusion as to the law:
The only questions that may be determined by this Court in this matter is whether the Petitioner has had due process of law in being inducted into the Army, and, whether, having been lawfully inducted, he is being retained in the Army in compliance with the law.
The Court has no authority to review the action of the Army in making classification of or assigning its personnel, and no question is raised as to compliance with law or procedure by his draft board or other agencies in inducting the Petitioner into the Army.
The question appears to the Court to be clearly one as to whether a doctor, a medical doctor, may be inducted under the statute involved and be retained in the Army regardless of whether he is given a status as a doctor, which it appears can be given, under the stipulated facts, only when that person is a commissioned officer.
It would appear from pertinent excerpts from Congressional hearings and debates that the purpose of the law was to encourage and to bring into the Service more doctors who were seriously needed.
As far as the Court is concerned, it is clear from the nature of the questions and responses in those Congressional hearings that the law itself does not require that the person, or doctor, drafted under the Act must serve as a doctor.
The questions put by the members of the committees, and the responses thereto, indicate that the Army "intended", "proposed", or "hoped" to do certain things, but the law itself did not...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Eichstaedt
...into the legality of their detention by the military. In re Phillips, 167 F.Supp. 139 (S.D.Cal.1958); United States ex rel. Orloff v. Willoughby, 104 F.Supp. 14 (W.D.Wash.1952). On the other hand, in Petition of Green, 156 F.Supp. 174 (S.D.Cal.1957), which involved a petition for a writ of ......
-
IN RE PHILLIPS'PETITION, 2158.
...for writ of habeas corpus is a proper remedy to test the legality of his detention in the Marine Corps. United States ex rel. Orloff v. Willoughby, D.C., 104 F. Supp. 14, affirmed 9 Cir., 195 F.2d 209, affirmed 345 U.S. 83, 73 S.Ct. 534, 97 L.Ed. Title 10 U.S.C.A. § 6293(a), as it was enact......
-
Camp v. Recreation Board for District of Columbia
... ... Civ. A. No. 3582-51 ... United States District Court District of Columbia ... April 10, ... ...
-
Orloff v. Willoughby
... ... the person of the petitioner were under the exclusive jurisdiction of the President of the United States as Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces, and that petitioner had failed to exhaust his ... ...