Court Opinion

ID: 9456911
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 20:05:45.568895+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:35:08.462095
License: Public Domain

GIBBONS, Circuit Judge
(dissenting).
The analysis of Oestereich v. Selective Service System Local Board No. 11, 393 U.S. 233, 89 S.Ct. 414, 21 L.Ed.2d 402 (1968) and Clark v. Gabriel, 393 U.S. 256, 89 S.Ct. 424, 21 L.Ed.2d 418 (1968) set forth in Judge Van Dusen's opinion was tacitly rejected by a majority of this court in Hunt v. Local Board No. 197, 438 F.2d 1128, No. 18,076 (3 Cir. 1971). In that case a majority of the court could not agree on an opinion. But as the next to last sentence in Judge Freedman’s plurality opinion makes clear, he intended no more than to decide the case on a narrower ground presented by virtue of an agreement by the parties, at the bar of this court, as to certain facts. I objected in Hunt to the practice of deciding an appeal on a record not considered by the district court. I believed that the case could not be decided on the narrower ground selected by Judge *1091Freedman and the judges who concurred in his opinion. The actual disposition of the Hunt case ordered by a majority of the court is consistent with the views expressed in the opinions filed by Judge Hastie and by me. I do not claim that either his opinion or mine is a binding precedent for this case. I do, however, continue to adhere to the interpretation of Section 10(b) (3) of the Selective Service Act which I set forth in that opinion.
As authority for the proposition that an appellate court can decide an appeal on a record other than that which was before the district court Judge Van Dusen cites Berkowitz v. Philadelphia Chewing Gum Corp., 303 F.2d 585 (3 Cir. 1962). That case is hardly authority for the action taken here. In Berkowitz the court took judicial notice of the record of the Orphans’ Court of Delaware County, Pennsylvania which raised a question whether the plaintiff in a negligence suit was a guardian ad litem rather than a general guardian. If the latter, and if the guardian plaintiff was a New Jersey resident, there would have been federal diversity jurisdictions. If the former, there would be no diversity. This court did not, as the majority proposes to do, decide the case on matters outside the record. It remanded to the district court for a determination of the facts.
The procedure adopted by the majority here offends due process, for the appellant had every right to assume that this court would review the decision actually made below on a Rule 12(b) motion rather than exercise original jurisdiction on a different record. Rule 10(e), Fed.R. App.P., far from sanctioning what has been done here seems to me, rather, to prohibit it. It contemplates correction of omissions in the record, and the record, as defined in Fed.R.App.P. 10(a) comprises only matters considered by the district court. It is true, as Judge Van Dusen points out, that counsel for appellant attached to his motion for an injunction pending appeal certain exhibits from the Selective Service file. These, however, were never claimed to present a complete picture. The plaintiff was denied a hearing under Rule 65, Red.R.Civ. P., in the district court on jurisdictional grounds. On his motion under Rule 8(a), Fed.R.App.P., he brought before this court some of the evidence which should have been received in the Rule 65 hearing. That course was proper since in applying for an injunction pending appeal appellant must “ * * * show the reasons for the relief requested and the facts relied upon, and if the facts are subject to dispute the motion shall be supported by affidavits or other sworn statements or copies thereof.” Rule 8(a), Fed.R.App.P. But the limited record contemplated by the rule governing applications for injunctions pending appeal is not intended to be a substitute for the district court record. The use to which these exhibits have been put by the majority is fundamentally unfair to the litigant, who might have included other exhibits had he known we proposed to exercise original rather than appellate jurisdiction.
The complaint claims jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (1964) (federal questions) and under 28 U.S.C. § 1361 (1964) (mandamus against a federal official). The district court dismissed pursuant to Rule 12(b) (1), Fed.R.Civ.P., because it considered Section 10(b) (3) of the Selective Service Act of 1967, 50 U.S.C.App. § 460(b) (3) (Supp. IV 1969) to deprive it of subject matter jurisdiction. To decide this appeal we should be confined to the pleading on which the district court acted. It alleges that plaintiff, separated from, but supporting a wife and child, not only was entitled to a III-A hardship classification, but actually had such a classification until the Local Board’s ex parte reclassification of June 18, 1969. It alleges that the request for reclassification brought before the Local Board the additional facts of his remarriage, his continued sole support of his former wife and son, and the present medical conditions of two dependents. Certainly *1092these allegations, if true, prima facie establish facts in addition to those considered when the registrant was classified, and which entitle him to a hardship deferment.
In this case, unlike Hunt, the Local Board did afford the applicant a personal appearance. Plaintiff-appellant contends that this was an actual reopening pursuant to 32 C.F.R. § 1625.11 (1970), and that such reopening brought into operation 32 C.F.R. § 1625.13 (1970) which provides:
“Each such classification shall be followed by the same right of appearance before the local board and the same right of appeal as in the case of an original classification.”
Respondent contends that the personal appearance was a “non-statutory hearing” and a matter of pure grace. In either event plaintiff was at least foreclosed from the right of administrative appeal which is mandated by the governing statute. If the personal appearance was a hearing upon reopening it was “subject to the right of appeal to the appeal boards herein authorized.” 50 U.S. C.App. § 460(b) (3) (Supp. IV 1969). If it was not a hearing upon reopening it was, additionally, a denial of procedural due process. Hunt v. Local Board No. 197, supra, and cases therein cited.
■ Another difference between this case and Hunt is the time when the facts'on which the applicant relies were called to the attention of the Local Board. The plaintiff in Hunt alleged that he gave the board notice of changed circumstances after classification but before receipt of an induction order. Here plaintiff’s application for reclassification took place after the issuance, in September, 1969, of an order to report for induction (SSS Form No. 252) but before the issuance of a different notice to report for induction on or about February 19, 1970. The Local Board’s letter of January 21, 1970, states that plaintiff will be subject to further processing for induction. This indicates that the September order to report for induction was cancelled or postponed, but there is nothing in the record before us which discloses how or why that was done. Judge Van Dusen states that the September 24, 1969 order to report for induction was never specifically cancelled by the Local Board. The complaint does not so allege, and the source of the facts on which he bases this conclusion is not disclosed.
A registrant who has received an order to report for induction bears a heavier burden in obtaining reopening and reclassification than does an applicant who has not yet been ordered up. Not only must he present “written information presenting facts not considered when the registrant was classified, which, if true, would justify a change in the registrant’s classification,” 32 C.F.R. § 1625.2 (1970), but he must convince the Local Board that “there has been a change in the registrant’s status resulting from circumstances over which the registrant had no control.” 32 C.F.R. § 1625.2 (1970). Thus the prima facie showing, after any induction order issues, requires three elements:
1. information not considered by the board when it made the classification;
2. information which would justify a change in classification;
3. change in circumstances over which the registrant had no control.
If these three requirements are met the board must reopen and afford new appearance and appeal rights “as in the ease of an original classification.” 32 C.F.R. § 1625.13 (1970). United States ex rel. Vaccarino v. Officer Of Day, 305 F.Supp. 732 (S.D.N.Y.1969). In the ease of an original classification, and hence in the case of a reopening and reconsideration, there is an automatic stay of an induction order pending an appearance before a Local Board, 32 C.F.R. § 1624.3 (1970), and pending administrative appeal, 32 C.F.R. § 1626.41 (1970).
As pointed out hereinabove, the present record does not disclose how or why *1093the September order for induction was cancelled or postponed. Induction was postponed, however, and this fact considered with the regulations on reopening, and automatic stay of induction orders, lends substance to plaintiff’s contention that the Local Board actually reopened his classification. No regulations other than those referred to provide for stay of an order for induction, and those referred to would come into operation in plaintiff’s situation only if 32 C.F.R. § 1625.13 (1970) came into operation.
In any event, an application for reconsideration made after an order for induction is treated, procedurally, in the same manner as one made before such an order. Substantively, however, the applicant must make the additional showing of change in circumstances beyond his control. Thus, if we assume the September induction order remained in effect, the only difference between this case and Hunt is the necessity for such an allegation.
Reading the complaint with the liberality required when reviewing an order dismissing for want of jurisdiction, it sufficiently alleges all three required elements. It alleges that plaintiff gave the board notice of remarriage, of continued support of the first wife and child, and of health conditions about which it had no prior information. Certainly the illness of the registrant’s wife and former wife were circumstances over which he had no control. The complaint could, perhaps, have been more specific about the nature and seriousness of these illnesses, but on a motion to dismiss it was clearly sufficient.
The majority rely, in affirming the dismissal, on the fact that the illnesses began prior to the September induction order. Conceding that the registrant has no control over the health of his wife or former wife, the majority say that the complaint fails to allege that their health changed for the worse after receipt of the September induction order. If they were ill both before and after the receipt of the order the registrant would not be entitled to reopening. If they became ill after receipt of the order reopening would be required.
To put in context the gross unfairness of such a distinction consider these allegations, which as the case is presented here must be accepted as true. The registrant on September 13,1967, was classified III-A. On June 11, 1969, the Local Board requested him to appear for a personal appearance on June 18, 1969. Because he was in transit from New Jersey to Ari2iona when the June 11,1969 letter was mailed he did not receive it until after June 18, 1969. The Local Board ex parte reclassified him I-A. Without the benefit of a personal appearance or opportunity to submit documentation in support of his request for a III-A classification, he appealed this reclassification. On September 8, 1969, his appeal was denied and on September 24, 1969, the induction order issued. After the September induction order issued, and with legal advice for the first time, he submitted new information which the Local Board considered at a personal appearance. When, following this personal appearance, he was continued in class I-A he attempted to appeal again, but was told that he had no further rights and would be subject to call at the next induction.
If the Local Board had rescheduled a personal appearance rather than ex parte reclassifying from III-A to I-A, the health circumstances would have been called to the board’s attention before the issuance of the September induction order, and the distinction relied upon by the majority would have been unavailable. I cannot imagine that 32 C.F.R. § 1625.2 was intended to produce so patently arbitrary a result. The registrant was in circumstances entitling him to a hardship deferment before the Local Board reclassified him I-A. Now, say the majority, the fact that the hardship antedated the resulting induction order is the reason for refusing to reopen.
Assuming that the induction order which triggered applicability of the *1094“change in circumstances beyond his control” requirement was the September order, I would hold that any illness not previously called to the attention of the Local Board was a change in circumstances beyond the registrant’s control for purposes of 32 C.F.R. § 1625.2. On this record, however, such a decision may not even be proper, since the applicable induction order for purposes of § 1625.2 may be the February, 1970, order. In that event the “beyond his control” requirement would not be applicable.
The difficulty as to the applicable order for purposes of § 1625.2 underscores the impropriety of appellate courts deciding appeals on procedural bases different from those of the district court. The district court obviously took a much narrower view of its jurisdiction than did any of the judges who comprised the majority in Hunt v. Local Board No. 197, supra. Indeed its interpretation of § 10 (b) (3) was narrower than that of the majority in this case. It dismissed not because it found that the Local Board acted properly but because it thought there was no jurisdiction to hear the matter. The majority affirms because the Local Board acted properly in refusing to reopen, on a record which does not even contain the complete Selective Service file.
I also take issue with the majority holding in Part III of the opinion, “We have examined the contention of the registrant regarding his entitlement to the random selection method and find it without merit.” The district court never considered this issue, and if, as in the other parts of the opinion it so strenuously urged, we lack jurisdiction, why should that issue be reached and decided on appeal? The approach on jurisdiction seems to be “heads the Selective Service System wins, tails the registrant loses.”
I would reverse and remand to the district court for a hearing.