GREGORY F. MILLER, APPELLANT,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, APPELLEE
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 appeal is moot because the petitioner is no longer restrained of his liberty.
Petitioner was convicted by court martial and sought habeas corpus. While the petition was pending, the unexecuted portion of his sentence was remitte…
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.
PER CURIAM.
Petitioner, while an enlisted man in the United States Army, was convicted by a general court martial and brought habeas corpus to obtain relief from the sentence imposed. After the trial court had denied his petition, the Secretary of the Army remitted the unexecuted portion of his sentence and ordered his separation from the service with an undesirable discharge. The government has moved to dismiss on the ground that the ease is moot.
Habeas corpus will not issue unless the petitioner “is presently restrained of his liberty without warrant of law.” See Macomber v. Hudspeth, 10 Cir., 115 F. 2d 114, 116, certiorari denied 313 U.S. 558, 61 S.Ct. 833, 85 L.Ed. 1519. Petitioner argues that this rule does not require dismissal because he received an undesirable discharge and he is entitled to free himself of the stigma resulting therefrom.
“An undesirable discharge is an administrative separation from the service under conditions other than honorable.” Army Regulations, Art. 635-200, para. (11) (a). Such discharge may be reviewed administratively by application to the Army Discharge Review Board established by the Secretary of the Army pursuant to 10 U.S.C. § 1553. Habeas corpus lies against a person having the petitioner in custody. See 28 U.S.C. § 2242; Jones v. Biddle, 8 Cir., 131 F. 2d 853, 854, certiorari denied 318 U.S. 784, 63 S.Ct. 856, 87 L.Ed. 1152. After the petitioner is released from all restraint, the reason for the writ fails. This is not a case like Jones v. Cunningham, 371 U.S. 236, 83 S.Ct. 373, 9 L.Ed.2d 285, where the petitioner was on parole and subject to the restraints incident to that status. Objections to the form of discharge must be made in accordance with the established administrative procedure.
The motion to dismiss the appeal is granted.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
United States v. Lease, 346 F.2d 696 (2d Cir. 1965)
-
Commissioner OF Internal Revenue v. Riss, 374 F.2d 161 (8th Cir. 1967)
-
Londell Brown and Warren E. Gilliam, Jr. v. Major General K. L. Reaves, 388 F.2d 682 (5th Cir. 1968)
Authorities Cited
- Jones v. Cunningham, 371 U.S. 236 (U.S. 1963)
- Jones v. Biddle, 131 F.2d 853 (8th Cir. 1942)
- MacOmber v. Hudspeth, 115 F.2d 114 (10th Cir. 1940)
- New York v. Frank, 313 U.S. 538 (U.S. 1941)
- Toucey v. N.Y. Life Ins. Co., 313 U.S. 538 (U.S. 1941)
- Boone v. Equitable Holding Co., 313 U.S. 558 (U.S. 1941)
- B. B. Chem. Co. v. Ellis, 313 U.S. 558 (U.S. 1941)
- Nichols v. Kubina, 318 U.S. 784 (U.S. 1943)
- Dodd v. Kansas, 318 U.S. 784 (U.S. 1943)