JAMES T. FINLEY
v.
CAPTAIN JOHN DREW, USN, COMMANDING OFFICER, NAVAL STATION, PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA, ET AL., APPELLANTS
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's order granting a writ of habeas corpus was insufficient for review because it lacked findings of fact and conclusions of law.
Appellee, a Navy enlisted man, sought a discharge as a conscientious objector, which the Navy denied. He petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus, raisi…
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 Conscientious Objector Discharge cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM:
The instant appeal is from the District Court’s Order granting a petition for writ of habeas corpus to the appellee James T. Finley, a United States Navy enlisted man whose application for discharge as a conscientious objector had been denied by the Navy.
The issues presented to the District Court were (1) whether the Navy’s denial of Finley’s application for a discharge was without any rational factual basis; and (2) whether the Navy’s use of the psychiatric reports of Finley’s privately retained civilian doctors, without affording him adequate opportunity to rebut the information contained in the reports, were in violation of procedural due process of law.
The District Court, following a hearing, entered an Order as follows:
“AND NOW, this 22nd day of July, 1970, it is hereby
ORDERED
that the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus be granted; and that the execution of the Writ be stayed for a period of sixty days for the purpose of allowing the Government to seek an appeal.”
The Order was not accompanied by findings of fact, conclusions of law, or an opinion. Accordingly, we are not apprised of the reasons for the District Court’s disposition. We deem this to be a case where findings of fact and conclusions of law are appropriate and necessary to our review.1
The cause will be remanded to the District Court with directions to file forthwith its findings of fact and conclusions of law. The District Court may file a memorandum opinion should it desire to do so. Jurisdiction will be retained.
. Von Moltke v. Gillies, 332 U.S. 708, 68 S.Ct. 316, 92 L.Ed. 309 (1948); Holiday v. Johnston, 313 U.S. 343, 353-354, 61 S.Ct. 1015, 85 L.Ed. 1392 (1941); Waters v. Beto, 392 F. 2d 74, 75 (5th Cir. 1968); Woolsey v. Beto, 387 F. 2d 138, 139 (5th Cir. 1967); Tatem v. United States, 107 U.S.App.D.C. 230, 275 F. 2d 894, 896 (1960). And see United States ex rel. Schultz v. Brierley, 449 F. 2d 1286 (3rd Cir., Opinion filed October 18, 1971), where Judge Gibbons, speaking for the Court, noted that in disposing of a habeas corpus petition, a District Court should disclose the reasons for its disposition “to the litigants and to a reviewing court less cryptically than in the order now before us.” The order in Brierley was similar in format to that here.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Finley v. Captain John Drew, 455 F.2d 515 (3d Cir. 1972)
Authorities Cited
- Von Moltke v. Gillies, 332 U.S. 708 (U.S. 1948)
- Holiday v. Johnston, 313 U.S. 342 (U.S. 1941)
- Clemmon D. Waters v. Beto, 392 F.2d 74 (5th Cir. 1968)
- Johnson v. United States, 275 F.2d 894 (D.C. Cir. 1960)
- United States ex rel. Regis Charles Schultz v. Brierley, 449 F.2d 1286 (3d Cir. 1971)
- Woolsey v. Beto, 387 F.2d 138 (5th Cir. 1967)