RICHARD L. REINOEHL, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,
v.
LEWIS B. HERSHEY, DIRECTOR OF THE SELECTIVE SERVICE SYSTEM, AND RAYMOND D. PALMER, HARRY H. PEARCE, CLIFFORD A. FISH, AND ROLAND C. KAUTH, AS MEMBERS OF LOCAL BOARD NUMBER 30, SELECTIVE SERVICE SYSTEM OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES
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 Selective Service Regulation's fee for file copies is authorized by statute and does not violate due process or equal protection.
Appellant sought to invalidate a Selective Service Regulation requiring a fee for a copy of his file and to compel its free issuance. The district cou…
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 Arbitrary And Capricious Standard Of Review cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM:
Appellant seeks to have declared invalid Selective Service System Regulation 32 C.F.R. § 1606.57 (1969) and to compel issuance without charge of a copy of his Selective Service file. The district court dismissed the complaint. We affirm.
The Regulation provides that before indictment or a habeas corpus proceeding, a registrant or his representative may review the file at the draft board office, and receive a copy by paying one dollar per page, or $5.00 per hour for an employee to monitor the file while the registrant copies the file himself. Post-indictment or post-habeas corpus registrants receive complete copies free of charge. Appellant is not in the latter categories.
We hold that 31 U.S.C. § 483a (1964 Ed.Supp. IV) does authorize such a charge and that 5 U.S.C. § 552 (1964 Ed. Supp. IV) requiring government agencies to make public information available does not change this result. In light of the reasonable alternatives available to the registrant to secure the desired information, we also conclude that the fees are not arbitrary and capricious and do not deprive him of due process or equal protection.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Diapulse Corp. OF Am. v. Food & Drug Admin. OF the Dep't OF Health, 500 F.2d 75 (2d Cir. 1974)
-
Oberlin v. The Marlin Am. Corp. (formerly The Marlin Corporation), 596 F.2d 1322 (7th Cir. 1979)
-
Yosemite Park & Curry Co. v. The United States, 686 F.2d 925 (Ct. Cl. 1982)