U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, 1970

Reinoehl v. Hershey

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Decided May 8, 1970 · Boldt, Kilkenny, Wright

426 F.2d 815 (Federal Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

Jonathan A. Ater (argued), of Lindsay, Nahstoll, Hart, Dafoe & Krause, Gerald H. Robinson, Nick Chaivoe, Port-land, Or., for appellant., Morton Hollander (argued), Ralph A. Fine, Dept, of Justice, William D. Ruckelshaus, Asst. Atty. Gen., Washington, D. C., Sidney I. Lezak, U. S. Atty., Jack G. Collins, Asst. U. S. Atty., Portland, Or., for appellee.

Cases that cite this one

3 later published cases cite this decision.

Yosemite Park v. United States (Court of Claims 1982)
Diapulse Corporation Of America v. Food And Drug Administration (2d Cir. 1974)
Reinoehl v. Hershey (9th Cir. 1970)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

PER CURIAM:

Appellant seeks to have declared invalid Selective Service System Regulation 32 C.F.R. § 1606.57 (1969) and to compel issuance without charge of a copy of his Selective Service file. The district court dismissed the complaint. We affirm.

The Regulation provides that before indictment or a habeas corpus proceeding, a registrant or his representative may review the file at the draft board office, and receive a copy by paying one dollar per page, or $5.00 per hour for an employee to monitor the file while the registrant copies the file himself. Post-indictment or post-habeas corpus registrants receive complete copies free of charge. Appellant is not in the latter categories.

We hold that 31 U.S.C. § 483a (1964 Ed.Supp. IV) does authorize such a charge and that 5 U.S.C. § 552 (1964 Ed. Supp. IV) requiring government agencies to make public information available does not change this result.

*816In light of the reasonable alternatives available to the registrant to secure the desired information, we also conclude that the fees are not arbitrary and capricious and do not deprive him of due process or equal protection.

Affirmed.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.