Lasky v. McHugh, 668 F. App'x 369

Raymond Lasky, pro se, challenged his 1951 bad-conduct discharge and court-martial convictions in district court against Secretary of the Army John McHugh.
District court dismissed most claims under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) and granted summary judgment on Lasky’s APA claim.
Lasky sought discovery and an evidentiary hearing; the district court denied these requests.
The district court did not treat or convert the complaint into a habeas petition with effective notice, but addressed jurisdictional defects.
The court concluded it lacked jurisdiction to directly review court-martial determinations and that Lasky was not "in custody" for § 2241 habeas jurisdiction.
Lasky appealed; the Second Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether district court abused discretion by denying discovery/evidentiary hearing	Lasky argued discovery and a hearing were needed to prove claims	Government argued dismissal appropriate without discovery; jurisdictional and pleading defects resolvable on record	No abuse of discretion; dismissal appropriate without additional discovery/hearing
Whether APA claim warranted relief	Lasky sought administrative relief reversing discharge via APA	Government argued APA review improper or claim fails on merits/jurisdiction	Summary judgment for government on APA claim affirmed
Whether federal courts may directly review 1951 court-martials	Lasky sought direct review of court-martial convictions	Government argued Article III courts lack jurisdiction to directly review court-martials	Direct review barred; district court properly declined to hear direct appeal
Whether § 2241 habeas jurisdiction exists ("in custody")	Lasky contended habeas relief for court-martial convictions was available	Government argued Lasky was not "in custody" under the challenged sentence, so § 2241 inapplicable	No § 2241 jurisdiction because Lasky was not in custody; any conversion error harmless

Pippins v. KPMG LLP, 759 F.3d 235 (2d Cir. 2014) (standard for reviewing discovery decisions)
Zappia Middle E. Constr. Co. v. Emirate of Abu Dhabi, 215 F.3d 247 (2d Cir. 2000) (standard for evidentiary hearing review)
Halebian v. Berv, 644 F.3d 122 (2d Cir. 2011) (courts ordinarily decide Rule 12(b)(6) on complaint and attachments)
Gualandi v. Adams, 385 F.3d 236 (2d Cir. 2004) (no abuse in denying discovery to overcome jurisdictional challenge)
Watson v. Geren, 587 F.3d 156 (2d Cir. 2009) (review limited to agency’s stated grounds)
Willey v. Kirkpatrick, 801 F.3d 51 (2d Cir. 2015) (standards for review of dismissals and summary judgment; liberal construction for pro se plaintiffs)
Tsirelman v. Daines, 794 F.3d 310 (2d Cir. 2015) (same standards for de novo review of dismissals)
Schlesinger v. Councilman, 420 U.S. 738 (1975) (Article III courts lack jurisdiction to directly review court-martial determinations)
Beth Israel Med. Ctr. v. Horizon Blue Cross & Blue Shield of N.J., Inc., 448 F.3d 573 (2d Cir. 2006) (appellate affirmation permitted on any supporting ground)
Simon v. United States, 359 F.3d 139 (2d Cir. 2004) (requirement to notify litigant before construing complaint as habeas)
Williams v. Edwards, 195 F.3d 95 (2d Cir. 1999) ("in custody" requirement for § 2241)