Pinesich v. Miller

E.D. Pennsylvania

Pinesich v. Miller

89 F. Supp. 539, 1950 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4010

CourtDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania

DecidedMarch 22, 1950

DocketNo. 10431

StatusPublished

This text of 89 F. Supp. 539 (Pinesich v. Miller) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Pinesich v. Miller, 89 F. Supp. 539, 1950 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4010 (E.D. Pa. 1950).

Pincite

Opinion

CLARY, District Judge.

This is an action by an alien against the Commissioner of Immigration and Naturalization for review of an order of deportation. The matter is before us on defendant’s motion to dismiss the action on the ground that this Court lacks jurisdiction of the person of Watson B. Miller, Commissioner of Immigration and Naturalization.

The precise question was before Bard, J. for consideration and was resolved in favor of the defendant, Stamatiou v. Miller, D.C., 88 F.Supp. 556. For the reasons expressed in that opinion, we hold that this Court lacks jurisdiction over the defendant and venue is improperly laid. In the Stamatiou case, the cause was transferred to the District Court for the District of Columbia under the provisions of 28 U.S.C.A. § 1406, which provided for a mandatory transfer to the proper district. That section has been changed and now provides as follows: “(a) The district court of a district in which is filed a case laying venue in the wrong division or district shall dismiss, or if it be in the interest of justice, transfer such case to any district or division in which it could have been brought.”

There appear no reasons of record requiring a transfer rather than a dismissal and, therefore, the petition for review will be ordered dismissed, without prejudice, of course, to the right of the petitioner to seek a remedy in the proper district.

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

CLARY, District Judge.

This is an action by an alien against the Commissioner of Immigration and Naturalization for review of an order of deportation. The matter is before us on defendant’s motion to dismiss the action on the ground that this Court lacks jurisdiction of the person of Watson B. Miller, Commissioner of Immigration and Naturalization.

The precise question was before Bard, J. for consideration and was resolved in favor of the defendant, Stamatiou v. Miller, D.C., 88 F.Supp. 556. For the reasons expressed in that opinion, we hold that this Court lacks jurisdiction over the defendant and venue is improperly laid. In the Stamatiou case, the cause was transferred to the District Court for the District of Columbia under the provisions of 28 U.S.C.A. § 1406, which provided for a mandatory transfer to the proper district. That section has been changed and now provides as follows: “(a) The district court of a district in which is filed a case laying venue in the wrong division or district shall dismiss, or if it be in the interest of justice, transfer such case to any district or division in which it could have been brought.”

There appear no reasons of record requiring a transfer rather than a dismissal and, therefore, the petition for review will be ordered dismissed, without prejudice, of course, to the right of the petitioner to seek a remedy in the proper district.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

89 F. Supp. 539, 1950 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4010, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pinesich-v-miller-paed-1950.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack