LYNCH
v.
HERSHEY
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the threat of criminal prosecution for failing to report for induction does not constitute unlawful restraint of liberty sufficient to support a writ of habeas corpus.
Appellant, a selective service registrant, was ordered to report for induction but instead filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, arguing the t…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Constructive Custody cases and more on FLexlaw
[*524] PER CURIAM.
Appellant, a resident of Dell City, Texas, and a selective service registrant, was classified in category 1-A by his local draft board and ordered to report for induction to El Paso, Texas. Instead of so reporting, he journeyed to Washington, D. C., took up residence in the Hotel Statler, and filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus against the Director of Selective Service in the District Court for the District of Columbia. That petition was denied and this appeal was taken.
Appellant recognizes that habeas corpus cannot be obtained unless there is an unlawful restraint of liberty but he argues that such restraint may be constructive rather than real, and he further contends that the threat of imminent criminal prosecution for failure to report in response to the induction order constitutes “constructive custody” and is sufficient to support the issuance of the writ.
That position is untenable. This case differs in no essential respect from any criminal case in which prosecution is threatened for failure to obey a lawful statutory command. If habeas corpus were an applicable remedy here the writ would of necessity have to be made available to every person who anticipates prosecution for violation of law. That has never been the function and purpose of habeas corpus and we deem it unwise to dilute the potency of the great writ by sanctioning its use in circumstances not related to actual confinement.
' It is said that Ex parte Fabiani, D.C.E.D.Pa., 1952, 105 F.Supp. 139, is authority to the contrary in that a registrant, by petitioning for habeas corpus, may escape the choice between entering military service as ordered (with the possibility of habeas corpus later) and defending in a criminal proceeding for refusal to submit to induction. Insofar as the Fabiani case may be so interpreted, it does not, in our view, correctly state the law. There are, however, "factual differences of some significance between that case and the instant one which might account for the result reached there. In any event, appellant here is not entitled to the issuance of the writ and the order of the court below therefore must be
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Maarten Crijns deROZARIO v. Commanding Officer, 390 F.2d 532 (9th Cir. 1967)
-
Application of Joseph E. Steiner, Jr. v. The Officer IN Command, 436 F.2d 687 (5th Cir. 1970)
-
Clements v. State, 59 F.4th 1204 (11th Cir. 2023)…2), and United States ex rel. Steinberg v. Graham, 57 F. Supp. 938 (E.D. Ark. 1944)). Even setting aside those decisions' recency, they were aberrant, and they were denounced at the time for having “not correctly state[d] the law.” Lynch v. Hershey, 208 F.2d 523, 524 (D.C. Cir. 1953) (observing that “con- structive custody” was an “untenable” basis for habeas relief); see also, e.g., McDowell v. Sacramento Loc. Bd. Grp., Boards 21, 22 & 23, Selective Serv. Sys., 264 F. Supp. 492, 495 (E.D. Cal. 1967) (same)…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence