Document: 401 U.S. 487 91 S.Ct. 995 28 L.Ed.2d 251 Herbert Phillip SCHLANGER, Petitioner,v.Robert C. SEAMANS, Jr., Secretary of the Air Force, et al. No. 5481. Argued Feb. 22, 1971. Decided March 23, Rehearing Denied May 17, See 402 990, 1671. Syllabus The District Court for Arizona did not have jurisdiction to entertain a habeas corpus application by an Force enlisted man in on temporary duty orders, as no custodian, neither commanding officer at Moody Base Georgia nor anyone chain command, was resident Arizona. Pp. 488-492. Affirmed. Schlanger, pro se. Sol. Gen. Erwin N. Griswold, respondents. Mr. Justice DOUGLAS delivered opinion Court. 1 sole question this case is whether had merits petitioner's writ corpus. He who accepted Airman's Education and Commissioning Program, training project, assigned Wright-Patterson (AFB), Ohio, 'with State University' training. While studying before completion course, he removed from program, allegedly engaging civil rights activities campus. 2 seeking administrative relief through command channels, reassigned AFB, Georgia, complete remainder his six-year reenlistment noncommissioned status. After exhausting those remedies given permissive attend study, time superiors AFB under different program called Operation Bootstrap, own expense.1 3 Thereafter2 filed alleging that enlistment contract been breached being detained unlawfully. denied application. Appeals affirmed basis Jarrett v. Resor, 9 Cir., 426 F.2d 213. here petition certiorari which we granted. 400 865, 110, 27 103. 4 respondents suit are Commander AF ROTC last respondent only one three present control over petitioner concededly since but Bootstrap. custody petitioner; judicial district amenable its process. 5 It true, exerted sense arm long effectively subject orders directions. There cases suggest such establish may be adequate even though exercised point located outside State, or State. Donigian Laird, D.C., 308 F.Supp. 449. For reasons stated, do reach question. 6 procedure governing issuance provided statute. federal courts grant 'within their respective jurisdictions.' U.S.C. § 2241(a). Act speaks 'a prisoner' (28 2241(c)), term has liberally construed include members armed services unlawfully detained, restrained, confined. Eagles United States ex rel. Samuels, 329 304, 312, 67 313, 317, 318, L.Ed. 308. extends 'in color authority States.' 2241(c)(1). instant any well person must territorial 7 In Ahrens Clark, 335 188, 68 1443, 92 1898, held it sufficient if custodian alone found where persons were jurisdiction3 territorial.4 dissent thought critical element applicant confined located; Court, then appropriate could effected. 8 Whichever view taken problem little help here. while within AFB—is not. other words, minority against whom can run. Hence, assume custody'5 military act restraint freedom movement (Jones Cunningham, 371 236, 240, 83 373, 375, 376, 285), absence fatal Cf. Rudick 2d 412 16, 21. Had petitioner, filing petition, liaison supervise would We aspects merits, viz., whether, right contending breached, remedy. 10 11 HARLAN concurs result. 12 STEWART dissents. Headquarters University. By terms, order 'permitted (petitioner) proceed GA. University, Tempe, AZ, effective about June 1969 approximately 70 days purpose attending University Bootstrap return GA.' travel authorized 'at expense Government.' Petitioner attended summer obtained degree. This action started shortly after degree still Shortly thereafter Congress prisoner, matter held, motion invoke sentencing court released showing sentence unlawful. 2255. Hayman, 342 205, 220, 72 263, 272, 96 232; Kaufman States, 394 217, 89 1068, 22 227. Later made exception jurisdictional requirement noted allowing state prisoner seek sentenced, confined, both same 2241(d) (1964 ed., Supp. V). As respects amendment said Nelson George, 399 224, 228 n. 5, 90 1963, 1966, 26 578: 'The legislative history 1966 amendments V) suggests intended endorse preserve rule extent altered amendments. H.R.Rep.No.1894, 89th Cong., Sess., 1-2 (1966). also S.Rep.No.1502, Sess. (1966).' Although 1391(e) V), nationwide service process 'civil each defendant employee States' section barren indication extended jurisdiction. That enacted broaden venue actions previously brought Columbia. H.R.Rep.No.536, 87th 1st 1; S.Rep.No.1992, 2. Though technically 'civil,' automatically all rules ordinary actions. Harris Nelson, 286, 1082, 281. concept 'custody' evolving Judge Northrop shows 449, 451. And see Peyton Rowe, 391 54, 64-66, 88 1549, 1554, 1555, 20 426. Jones 238, 243, 374-377, 285, said: 'While limiting availability custody,' statute does attempt mark boundaries way than use word limit situations used. * 'History, usage, precedent leave doubt that, besides physical imprisonment, there restraints man's liberty, shared public generally, English-speaking world support 'It (the Great Writ) now never static, narrow, formalistic remedy; scope grown achieve grand purpose—the protection individuals erosion free wrongful upon liberty. parole releases him immediate imposes conditions significantly confine restrain freedom; enough keep Virginia Parole Board meaning statute; prove allegations violation Constitution, therefore error dismiss moot instead permitting add respondents.'

Category: 0