Wong Doo v. United States, 736
Citation | 265 U.S. 239,68 L.Ed. 999,44 S.Ct. 524 |
Decision Date | 26 May 1924 |
Docket Number | No. 736,736 |
Parties | WONG DOO v. UNITED STATES |
Court | United States Supreme Court |
Messrs. Wm. J. Dawley, of Cleveland, Ohio, and Jackson H. Ralston and George W. Holt, both of Washington, D. C., for petitioner.
Mr. George Ross Hull, of Washington, D. C., for the United States.
This is a second petition for a writ of habeas corpus by a Chinese in custody under an order of deportation issued under section 19 of the Immigration Act of February 5, 1917, c. 29, 39 Stat. 874 (Comp. St. 1918, Comp. St. Ann. Supp. 1919, § 4289 1/4 jj).
In the first petition the validity of the order was assailed on two grounds: One that the Secretary of Labor issued it without lawful jurisdiction, and the other that the administrative hearing on which it rested was not adequate or fair but essentially arbitrary. The return, besides answering the first ground, denied there was in fact any basis for the second. At the hearing in the District Court on these issues the petitioner offered no proof in support of the second ground. The court ruled that the first was not good in law, remanded the petitioner and dismissed his petition. He appealed to the Circuit Court of Appeals, and it affirmed the decision.
Later the second petition was presented to the same District Court. In it the petitioner relied entirely on the second ground set forth before. There was some elaboration in stating it, but no enlargement of the substance. The petitioner sought to distinguish the two petitions by alleging in the second that the earlier one was 'based solely' on the jurisdictional objection; but that allegation was not true. The return in the second case fully denied the charge that the administrative hearing was inadequate, unfair, and arbitrary, set up the prior petition and the proceedings thereon, and prayed a dismissal of the second petition.
After a hearing, the District Court ruled that the doctrine of res judicata applied, held the decision in the first case was conclusive in the second; remanded the petitioner, and dismissed the petition. Wong Sun v. Fluckey, 283 Fed. 989. On an appeal to the Circuit Court of Appeals that decision was affirmed. Wong Sun v. United States, 293 Fed. 273.
In Salinger v. Loisel, 265 U. S. 224, 44 Sup. Ct. 519, 68 L. Ed. ——, just decided we held that in the federal courts the doctrine of res judicata does not apply to a refusal to discharge a prisoner on...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Carmen, Application of
...to proceed to a judgment against him. Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458, 466-468, 58 S.Ct. 1019, 82 L.Ed. 1461; Wong Doo v. United States, 265 U.S. 239, 44 S.Ct. 524, 68 L.Ed. 999, Salinger v. Loisel, 265 U.S. 224, 44 S.Ct. 519, 68 L.Ed. The Utecht case, while factually very similar, has real......
-
Jackson v. Olson
... ... or laws of the United States which exempts an offender, ... brought before the courts of a ... it.' See, also, Wong" Doo v. United States, 265 U.S. 239, ... 44 S.Ct. 524, 68 L.Ed. 999 ... \xC2" ... ...
-
Hardwick v. Doolittle
...petitions, see 265 U.S. at 231-32, 44 S.Ct. 519, and applied that rule the same day in the case of Wong Doo v. United States, 265 U.S. 239, 44 S.Ct. 524, 68 L.Ed. 999 (1924). In Wong Doo the petitioner sought habeas corpus on a ground that he had alleged in a prior petition but failed to pr......
-
Smith v. United States
...at any time". "The first purpose is self-explanatory and would seem to require no elaboration. Also see Wong Doo v. United States, 265 U.S. 239, 241 44 S.Ct. 524, 68 L.Ed. 999 (1924). "The second purpose is brought about by allowing presentation of a subsequent petition based upon `new\' gr......
-
Protecting first federal habeas corpus petitions: closing the opening left by Gomez.
...parte Heller, 131 N.W. 991, 994 (Wis. 1911). (24) See, eg., Ex parte Cuddy, 40 F. 62, 66 (S.D. Cal. 1889). (25) 265 U.S. 224 (1924). (26) 265 U.S. 239 (1924). (27) McCleskey v. Zant, 499 U.S. 467, 480 (1991) (quoting Salinger, 265 U.S. at 230). (28) See Id. at 481 (quoting Salinger, 265 U.S......