John Christopher Doyle v. United States Department of Justice

D.C. Circuit

John Christopher Doyle v. United States Department of Justice

668 F.2d 1365, 215 U.S. App. D.C. 333, 1981 U.S. App. LEXIS 16275

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedNovember 6, 1981

Docket80-2121

StatusPublished

Cited by40 cases

This text of 668 F.2d 1365 (John Christopher Doyle v. United States Department of Justice) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

John Christopher Doyle v. United States Department of Justice, 668 F.2d 1365, 215 U.S. App. D.C. 333, 1981 U.S. App. LEXIS 16275 (D.C. Cir. 1981).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion Per Curiam.

PER CURIAM:

Appellant Doyle is a fugitive from federal court processes. He was sentenced by the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut, and failed to appear for service of his sentence. On July 15, 1965, a bench warrant was issued for his arrest. Doyle is now a naturalized citizen and resident of the Republic of Panama. The district court held that while Doyle remains a fugitive from federal justice he may not call upon the resources of the court to adjudicate his claim, 494 F.Supp. 842 (D.D.C.1980). We agree and therefore affirm the district court’s dismissal of Doyle’s complaint.

Doyle asserts that, because his lawsuit is based on the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), the court cannot close its door to him. Only Congress, not the judiciary, may establish exceptions to that Act’s disclosure commands. See Soucie v. David, 448 F.2d 1067, 1076 (D.C. Cir. 1971). But the refusal to entertain Doyle’s claim under the circumstances presented here is unrelated to the particular statute Doyle invokes. We note, however, that Doyle’s FOIA request for all Department of Justice records concerning him is not devoid of a relationship to the sentence he is evading. Should Doyle present himself for service of the sentence lawfully imposed upon him, he would have full access to an appropriate federal forum to enforce any legitimate federal claims he may have. So long as he evades federal authority, however, it is the general rule *1366 that he may not demand that a federal court service his complaint. See Molinaro v. New Jersey, 396 U.S. 365, 366, 90 S.Ct. 498, 24 L.Ed.2d 586 (1970).

For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court is hereby affirmed.

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

Opinion Per Curiam.

PER CURIAM:

Appellant Doyle is a fugitive from federal court processes. He was sentenced by the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut, and failed to appear for service of his sentence. On July 15, 1965, a bench warrant was issued for his arrest. Doyle is now a naturalized citizen and resident of the Republic of Panama. The district court held that while Doyle remains a fugitive from federal justice he may not call upon the resources of the court to adjudicate his claim, 494 F.Supp. 842 (D.D.C.1980). We agree and therefore affirm the district court’s dismissal of Doyle’s complaint.

Doyle asserts that, because his lawsuit is based on the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), the court cannot close its door to him. Only Congress, not the judiciary, may establish exceptions to that Act’s disclosure commands. See Soucie v. David, 448 F.2d 1067, 1076 (D.C. Cir. 1971). But the refusal to entertain Doyle’s claim under the circumstances presented here is unrelated to the particular statute Doyle invokes. We note, however, that Doyle’s FOIA request for all Department of Justice records concerning him is not devoid of a relationship to the sentence he is evading. Should Doyle present himself for service of the sentence lawfully imposed upon him, he would have full access to an appropriate federal forum to enforce any legitimate federal claims he may have. So long as he evades federal authority, however, it is the general rule *1366 that he may not demand that a federal court service his complaint. See Molinaro v. New Jersey, 396 U.S. 365, 366, 90 S.Ct. 498, 24 L.Ed.2d 586 (1970).

For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court is hereby affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

668 F.2d 1365, 215 U.S. App. D.C. 333, 1981 U.S. App. LEXIS 16275, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/john-christopher-doyle-v-united-states-department-of-justice-cadc-1981.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack