Opinion ID: 726160
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Soldiers' and Sailors' Civil Relief Act and Due Process

Text: 18 Mr. Hampshire claims that the state court's refusal to appoint counsel for his defense in the underlying divorce action violated both the Soldiers' and Sailors' Civil Relief Act (SSCRA) as well as his due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment by denying him meaningful access to the court to challenge the child support order. Both claims present questions of law that we review de novo. See Patton v. TIC United Corp., 77 F.3d 1235, 1243 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 116 S.Ct. 2525, 135 L.Ed.2d 1049 (1996). 19 The SSCRA temporarily suspends enforcement of civil liabilities against people on active duty in the military until after the court shall have appointed an attorney to represent the defendant and protect his interest. 50 U.S.C.App. §§ 510, 520(1). The district court found that the state court did violate the SSCRA by failing to appoint counsel for Mr. Hampshire but that such failure did not rise to the level of a due process violation. Hampshire, 892 F.Supp. at 1332. 20 We cannot agree that Mr. Hampshire was entitled to an attorney under the SSCRA. The language of the SSCRA is clear. Military Service is defined as Federal service on active duty, and active duty is defined as including the period during which a person in military service is absent from duty on account of sickness, wounds, leave, or other lawful cause. 50 U.S.C.App. § 511(1); see also Betha v. Martin, 188 F.Supp. 133, 134-35 (E.D.Penn.1960) (military service means active duty in the federal armed services). An AWOL soldier is not absent due to sickness, wounds, leave, or other lawful cause and may not avail himself of the benefits under SSCRA. Harriott v. Harriott, 211 N.J.Super. 445, 511 A.2d 1264, 1266 (1986). Mr. Hampshire's child support liability results from divorce proceedings filed against him in October 1986; he concedes that he was AWOL from the military at this time. Hampshire, 892 F.Supp. at 1331. Because he was AWOL at the time of filing and throughout the divorce proceedings, Mr. Hampshire was not on active duty and is definitionally precluded by the plain language of the SSCRA from availing himself of its benefits. See 50 U.S.C.App. § 511(1). Because the state court did not violate Mr. Hampshire's rights under the SSCRA, we need not reach Mr. Hampshire's due process claim predicated on such a violation. 21 Mr. Hampshire also argues that his Fourteenth Amendment due process rights were violated because he had no meaningful opportunity as an AWOL soldier in a civilian prison to be heard in state court to challenge the divorce and child support actions that form the basis of his CSRA conviction. The Due Process clause, incorporated by the Fourteenth Amendment to apply to the states, only applies when government action deprives a person of liberty or property. Greenholtz v. Inmates of the Nebraska Penal and Correctional Complex, 442 U.S. 1, 7, 99 S.Ct. 2100, 2103, 60 L.Ed.2d 668 (1979). Mr. Hampshire fails to articulate how the government prevented him from meaningfully defending himself while in prison or to identify a state law that prevented him from doing so. See Lynk v. LaPorte Superior Court No. 2, 789 F.2d 554 (7th Cir.1986) (state law required physical presence, even of incarcerated person, to obtain divorce). The district court properly rejected this claim.