Charles J. Lantz v. Robert C. Seamans, Jr., Secretary of the Air Force

Second Circuit

Charles J. Lantz v. Robert C. Seamans, Jr., Secretary of the Air Force

504 F.2d 423, 1974 U.S. App. LEXIS 6578

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedOctober 8, 1974

Docket21, Docket 74-1364

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 504 F.2d 423 (Charles J. Lantz v. Robert C. Seamans, Jr., Secretary of the Air Force) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Charles J. Lantz v. Robert C. Seamans, Jr., Secretary of the Air Force, 504 F.2d 423, 1974 U.S. App. LEXIS 6578 (2d Cir. 1974).

Pincite

Opinion

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.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

504 F.2d 423, 1974 U.S. App. LEXIS 6578, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/charles-j-lantz-v-robert-c-seamans-jr-secretary-of-the-air-force-ca2-1974.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack