CHARLES J. LANTZ, PETITIONER-APPELLANT,
v.
ROBERT C. SEAMANS, JR., SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE, RESPONDENT-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 district court had jurisdiction over the habeas corpus petition because New York was the proper forum, despite the petitioner's custodian being located elsewhere.
Petitioner, an inactive reservist, challenged the denial of his conscientious objector discharge application via habeas corpus. The district court dis…
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 Habeas Corpus Jurisdiction cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM:
Charles J. Lantz, an unattached, inactive United States Air Force reservist, appeals from an order entered January 30, 1974 in the Eastern District of New York, Mark A. Costantino, District Judge, dismissing for lack of jurisdiction a petition for a writ of habeas corpus by which Lantz challenged the denial by the Secretary of the Air Force of his application for a discharge based on his claim of conscientious objector status.
The narrow issue presented is the correctness of the district court’s determination that it lacked subject matter and in personam jurisdiction because petitioner’s “custodian”, i. e. his nominal commanding officer or other officer in his chain of command, was not located within the district court’s jurisdiction, and petitioner’s only contact within the court’s jurisdiction was his domicile.
We reverse essentially upon the authority of our own decision in Arlen v. Laird, 451 F. 2d 684 (2 Cir. 1971), which later was approved by the Supreme Court in Strait v. Laird, 406 U.S. 341, 344-45 (1972). See also Eisel v. Secretary of the Army, 477 F. 2d 1251 (D.C.Cir. 1973), and United States ex rel. Applebaum v. Seamans, 365 F.Supp. 1177 (S.D.N.Y.1973), both of which we approve.
In the instant case, while Maryland is the place where petitioner’s conscientious objector application was filed and processed and Colorado is the place where his records are kept, we hold upon the authorities cited above that New York is the proper forum for this ha-beas corpus proceeding and that the jurisdictional underpinning is provided by the facts that petitioner is domiciled in New York; he is a member of the New York bar; and.the Air Force implicitly recognized New York as the place of “custody” in notifying him there of the denial of his application for discharge.
Reversed and remanded for a hearing on the merits.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Strait v. Laird, 406 U.S. 341 (U.S. 1972)
- Arlen v. Hon. Melvin Laird, 451 F.2d 684 (2d Cir. 1971)
- Eisel v. Secretary OF THE Army, 477 F.2d 1251 (D.C. Cir. 1973)