William O. Douglas

“ Hence, even if we assume that petitioner is 'in custody' [5] in Arizona in the sense that he is subject to military orders and control which act as a restraint on his freedom of movement (Jones v. Cunningham, 371 U.S. 236, 240, 83 S.Ct. 373, 375, 376, 9 L.Ed.2d 285) , the absence of his custodian is fatal to the jurisdiction of the Arizona District Court. ”

“ For while petitioner is within the territorial jurisdiction of the District Court, the custodian the Commander of Moody AFB-is not. In other words, even under the minority view in Ahrens v. Clark, the District Court in Arizona has no custodian within its reach against whom its writ can run. ”