Source: http://openjurist.org/392/f2d/980/grisham-v-united-states
Timestamp: 2016-10-23 18:06:40
Document Index: 781207623

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 918', '§ 802', '§ 918', '§ 2501', '§ 918', 'Art. 118', '§ 802', 'Art. 2']

392 F2d 980 Grisham v. United States | OpenJurist
392 F. 2d 980 - Grisham v. United States HomeFederal Reporter, Second Series 392 F.2d.
392 F2d 980 Grisham v. United States 392 F.2d 980
Albert H. GRISHAMv.The UNITED STATES.
Lawrence J. Simmons, Washington, D. C., attorney of record, for plaintiff. H. Clay Espey, Washington, D. C., and Charles W. Kalp, of counsel.
Edgar H. Twine, Washington, D. C., with whom was Asst. Atty. Gen. Edwin L. Weisl, Jr., for defendant.
Plaintiff, Albert H. Grisham, a former civilian employee of the Corps of Engineers, Department of the Army, sues to recover his salary (and other benefits) for the period beginning December 7, 1952 and continuing thereafter.1
The United States Army requested jurisdiction over plaintiff, and the French authorities released him to the Army on December 24, 1952. Plaintiff was confined by the Army in the post stockdale at La Rochelle, France, and notified that he had been charged with premeditated murder under Article 118(1) of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (10 U.S.C. § 918(1) (Supp. IV, 1952)).2
Plaintiff was brought to trial on March 20, 1953, at Orleans, France, before a general court-martial appointed by Headquarters, USAREUR Communications Zone, United States Army. He was court-martialed under the authority of Article 2(11) of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (10 U.S.C. § 802(11) (Supp. IV, 1952)).3
The specification of the charge (a violation of Article 118 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (10 U.S.C. § 918)) alleged that:
Following the second decision by the United States Supreme Court in the case of Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1, 77 S.Ct. 1222, 1 L.Ed.2d 1148 (1957), plaintiff, on October 26, 1957, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania. The petition (alleging that the general court-martial lacked jurisdiction over a civilian employee prosecuted for a capital offense in peace-time) was denied (Grisham v. Taylor, 161 F.Supp. 112 (M.D.Pa.1958)), and the denial was affirmed on appeal (Grisham v. Taylor, 261 F.2d 204 (3d Cir. 1958)). The Supreme Court in Grisham v. Hagan, 361 U.S. 278, 80 S.Ct. 310, 4 L.Ed.2d 279 (1960), held that the attempt to apply the Uniform Code of Military Justice to the present plaintiff, a civilian employee serving with the Armed Forces outside the United States, was unconstitutional as violative of Article III and the Fifth and Sixth Amendments. This meant that the plaintiff's court-martial conviction was a nullity and wholly void. Mallow v. United States, 161 Ct.Cl. 446, 450 (1963). Plaintiff was released from the United States Penitentiary at Lewisburg, Pennsylvania, on February 5, 1960. Plaintiff's application, filed on June 9, 1961, with the Army Board for Correction of Military Records, was denied on July 27, 1961, without a hearing, and suit in this court was filed November 15, 1962.
We adhere to our opinion in Jackson v. United States, supra, and hold that plaintiff has offered nothing by way of justification or excuse for delays that ensued after October, 1957. Imprisonment is not a legal disability under 28 U.S.C. § 2501, which would extend plaintiff's time for filing suit. This is made manifest by the numerous cases through the years in which prisoners confined in Federal or state penal institutions have prosecuted claims in this court. E. g., Smith v. United States, 168 Ct.Cl. 242 (1964); Webster v. United States, 179 Ct.Cl. 917 (1967). Plaintiff has failed to show that he was prevented by prison authorities from filing suit.
We are indebted to Trial Commissioner Mastin G. White for his opinion, findings of fact and recommended conclusion of law submitted pursuant to the order of reference and Rule 57(a). We have adopted much of what the commissioner has written and arrive at the same result for different reasons
Plaintiff has withdrawn any claim for pay since he was released from prison on February 5, 1960 and from December 7, 1952 to February 23, 1953 when he was on annual leave status for which he was paid. Therefore, plaintiff's claim is for pay from February 24, 1953 to the date he was released from prison,i. e., February 5, 1960.
"§ 918. Art. 118. Murder
"§ 802. Art. 2. Persons subject to this chapter