Case Name: Edward J. Denton, III, CE3, U. S. Navy v. CDR James D. Kirkpatrick, USN, Commanding Officer, Naval Mobile Construction Battalion 74, FPO New York 09501; RADM Nowell G. Ward, USN, Commandant, Tenth Naval District, FPO New York 09550; and CAPT Lloyd T. Brown, USN, Commanding Officer, U. S. Naval Hospital, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
Court: United States Court of Military Appeals
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1972-07-14
Citations: 21 C.M.A. 658
Docket Number: No. 72-28
Parties: Edward J. Denton, III, CE3, U. S. Navy v CDR James D. Kirkpatrick, USN, Commanding Officer, Naval Mobile Construction Battalion 74, FPO New York 09501; RADM Nowell G. Ward, USN, Commandant, Tenth Naval District, FPO New York 09550; and CAPT Lloyd T. Brown, USN, Commanding Officer, U. S. Naval Hospital, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Judges: 
Reporter: Decisions of the United States Court of Military Appeals
Volume: 21
Pages: 658–659

Head Matter:
July 14, 1972
No. 72-28
Edward J. Denton, III, CE3, U. S. Navy v CDR James D. Kirkpatrick, USN, Commanding Officer, Naval Mobile Construction Battalion 74, FPO New York 09501; RADM Nowell G. Ward, USN, Commandant, Tenth Naval District, FPO New York 09550; and CAPT Lloyd T. Brown, USN, Commanding Officer, U. S. Naval Hospital, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

Opinion:
On consideration of the "Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus, Mandamus, and Other Extraordinary Relief" filed in the above-entitled action, it appearing that all matters set forth therein are more appropriately the subjects of motions addressed to and decided by the military judge if and when the charges against petitioner are referred to a court-martial, and it further appearing that no relief which petitioner seeks from this Court would be in aid of our jurisdiction (See, 10 USC § 1651 (a)), it is, by the Court, this 14th day of July 1972,
ORDERED:
That said Petition be, and the same is hereby, dismissed.