VERONICA E. SISSONS, TOM HIBNER, APPELLANTS,
v.
OFFICE OF SELECTIVE SERVICE OF THE UNITED STATES, ET AL., 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 district court properly dismissed the action against both appellants, one for lack of standing and the other for mootness.
Appellants brought a class action alleging irregularities in draft board procedures regarding information provided to registrants and the public. The …
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 Zone Of Interests Test cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM:
Appellants brought this purported class action to correct certain alleged irregularities in the procedures of local draft boards in not providing certain information to registrants and to the public. The district court dismissed the action as to appellant Sissons on the ground of lack of standing and as to appellant Hibner on the ground of mootness.
Assuming the action to be a proper class action under Rule 23, the dismissal as to appellant Sissons was obviously proper as she is not within the zone of interest to be regulated and cannot in fact be injured. Association of Data Processing Service Organizations v. Camp, 397 U.S. 150, 90 S.Ct. 827, 25 L.Ed.2d 184 (1970).
Appellant Hibner is a registrant, so is within the zone of interest regulated by the Selective Service System; however, no showing was made as to injury sustained by him so the case could have been dismissed as to him on lack of standing also. In any event the dismissal (summary judgment) as to him is clearly correct in light of the uncontroverted affidavits filed on behalf of the government showing correction of the alleged deficiencies. Davis v. Hershey, 430 F. 2d 1296 (9th Cir. 1970).
It should also be pointed out that there is no allegation in the complaint indicating any effort to exhaust administrative remedies.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Comm. FOR Auto Responsibility (C.A.R.) v. Solomon, 603 F.2d 992 (D.C. Cir. 1979)
-
Cicchetti v. Lucey, 514 F.2d 362 (1st Cir. 1975)
Authorities Cited
- Ass'n of Data Processing Serv. Orgs., Inc. v. Camp, 397 U.S. 150 (U.S. 1970)
- Davis v. Hershey, 430 F.2d 1296 (9th Cir. 1970)