In re Tommins

United States Court of Military Appeals

In re Tommins

23 C.M.A. 410, 1 M.J. 33, 50 C.M.R. 292, 23 USCMA 410, 1975 CMA LEXIS 779

CourtUnited States Court of Military Appeals

DecidedMay 19, 1975

DocketMiscellaneous Docket No. 75-17

StatusPublished

This text of 23 C.M.A. 410 (In re Tommins) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States Court of Military Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In re Tommins, 23 C.M.A. 410, 1 M.J. 33, 50 C.M.R. 292, 23 USCMA 410, 1975 CMA LEXIS 779 (cma 1975).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM OPINION OF THE COURT

The above-named individuals have submitted for this Court’s consideration, a document entitled "Petition of Intervention.” By this means each seeks to intervene in the case of Bouler v Wood, Miscellaneous Docket No. 75-16 (USCMA, filed May 2, 1975), evidently as parties petitioner.

The petitioners represent that they are held in pretrial confinement, and they request the issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the military judge named as respondent in Bouler v Wood, supra, to rule on motions for pretrial release "of all accused placed in pretrial confinement who appear before him with said motions,” or, in the alternative, to issue a writ of habeas corpus directing the release of said petitioners.

Prescinding from the fact that class actions are not encompassed within the [411]*411scope of 28 USC § 1651(a), nor otherwise authorized within the scope of this Court’s jurisdiction,¹ to the extent that these petitioners assert individual claims for relief, their petition is ineffective for more fundamental reasons:

1.The charges under which each petitioner is confined pending trial are not set out. We cannot determine, therefore, whether or not their individual cases may eventually be the subject of a petition to this Court pursuant to Article 67(c)(3), Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 USC § 867(c)(3).²

2. There is no indication whether any of the charges have been referred to a court-martial authorized to impose a sentence within this Court’s jurisdictional limits.³

3. There is no indication that the charges against petitioners have been referred to a. court-martial to which the military judge named as respondent in Bouler v Wood, supra, has been detailed.

Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.

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

MEMORANDUM OPINION OF THE COURT

The above-named individuals have submitted for this Court’s consideration, a document entitled "Petition of Intervention.” By this means each seeks to intervene in the case of Bouler v Wood, Miscellaneous Docket No. 75-16 (USCMA, filed May 2, 1975), evidently as parties petitioner.

The petitioners represent that they are held in pretrial confinement, and they request the issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the military judge named as respondent in Bouler v Wood, supra, to rule on motions for pretrial release "of all accused placed in pretrial confinement who appear before him with said motions,” or, in the alternative, to issue a writ of habeas corpus directing the release of said petitioners.

Prescinding from the fact that class actions are not encompassed within the [411]*411scope of 28 USC § 1651(a), nor otherwise authorized within the scope of this Court’s jurisdiction,¹ to the extent that these petitioners assert individual claims for relief, their petition is ineffective for more fundamental reasons:

1.The charges under which each petitioner is confined pending trial are not set out. We cannot determine, therefore, whether or not their individual cases may eventually be the subject of a petition to this Court pursuant to Article 67(c)(3), Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 USC § 867(c)(3).²

2. There is no indication whether any of the charges have been referred to a court-martial authorized to impose a sentence within this Court’s jurisdictional limits.³

3. There is no indication that the charges against petitioners have been referred to a. court-martial to which the military judge named as respondent in Bouler v Wood, supra, has been detailed.

Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

23 C.M.A. 410, 1 M.J. 33, 50 C.M.R. 292, 23 USCMA 410, 1975 CMA LEXIS 779, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-tommins-cma-1975.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack