U.S. Code » Title 28 » Part PART II— DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE › Chapter CHAPTER 37— UNITED STATES MARSHALS SERVICE

28 U.S.C. § 569

Reemployment rights

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 28 CasesGoogle Scholar
(a) A United States marshal for a judicial district who was appointed from a position in the competitive service (as defined in section 2102 of title 5) in the United States Marshals Service and who, for reasons other than misconduct, neglect of duty, or malfeasance, is removed from such office, is entitled to be reemployed in any vacant position in the competitive service in the United States Marshals Service at the same grade or pay level, or lower, as the individual’s former position if—(1) the individual is qualified for the vacant position; and(2) the individual has made application for the position not later than ninety days after being removed from office as a United States marshal.Such individual shall be so reemployed within thirty days after making such application or after being removed from office, whichever is later. An individual denied reemployment under this section in a position because the individual is not qualified for that position may appeal that denial to the Merit Systems Protection Board under section 7701 of title 5.(b) Any United States marshal serving on the effective date of this section shall continue to serve for the remainder of the term for which such marshal was appointed, unless sooner removed by the President.(Added Pub. L. 98–473, title II, § 1211(a), Oct. 12, 1984, 98 Stat. 2163, § 576; renumbered § 569, Pub. L. 100–690, title VII, § 7608(a)(2)(B), Nov. 18, 1988, 102 Stat. 4514.)Editorial NotesReferences in Text

The effective date of this section, referred to in subsec. (b), is Oct. 1, 1984. See Effective Date note set out below.

Prior Provisions

A prior section 569, added Pub. L. 89–554, § 4(c), Sept. 6, 1966, 80 Stat. 620; amended Pub. L. 95–598, title II, § 221, Nov. 6, 1978, 92 Stat. 2662; Pub. L. 96–417, title V, § 501(12), Oct. 10, 1980, 94 Stat. 1742; Pub. L. 99–466, § 3(a), Oct. 14, 1986, 100 Stat. 1191, related to powers and duties generally and supervision by the Attorney General, prior to repeal by Pub. L. 100–690, § 7608(a)(1). See section 566 of this title.

Amendments

1988—Pub. L. 100–690 renumbered section 576 of this title as this section.

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesEffective Date

Pub. L. 98–473, title II, § 1212, Oct. 12, 1984, 98 Stat. 2163, provided that: “The amendments made by this subpart [subpart B (§§ 1211, 1212) of part F of chapter XII of title II of Pub. L. 98–473, enacting this section] shall take effect on October 1, 1984.”

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 29 cases, 1969–1989 · leading case: Pennsylvania Bureau of Corr. v. United States Marshals Serv., 474 U.S. 34 (1985).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Pennsylvania Bureau of Corr. v. United States Marshals Serv., 474 U.S. 34 (1985). · cites it 4× “II The Commonwealth argues that the Marshals have a statutory obligation to obey the lawful orders and writs of the federal courts, 28 U. S. C. § 569 (b), and are statutorily authorized to expend funds for the specific purpose of transporting prisoners, § 567.”
United States v. Edwin Affron Kartman, 417 F.2d 893 (9th Cir. 1969). · cites it 2× “However, 28 U.S.C. § 569 (c) vests authority in the Attorney General to “supervise and direct United States marshals in the performance of public duties * * * ” ; 6 and we have no doubt that under this broad grant of authority the Attorney General could properly limit the…”
Garland v. Sullivan, 737 F.2d 1283 (3rd Cir. 1984). · cites it 7× “The first statute relied upon was 28 U.S.C. § 569 (b), which instructs the Marshals to “execute all lawful.”
Marks v. Calendine, 80 F.R.D. 24 (N.D.W. Va. 1978). “It is stated in 28 U.S.C. § 569 (a) that “The United States [Mjarshal of each district is the marshal of the district court .”
Martinez v. Winner, 548 F. Supp. 278 (D. Colo. 1982). “88 1 28 U.S.C. § 569 (b) provides that “United States marshals shall execute all lawful writs, process and orders issued under the authority of the United States .”
United States v. Marcus James Harris, 544 F.2d 947 (8th Cir. 1976). “Under 28 U.S.C. § 569 (b), the United States Marshal is given authority to carry out all lawful orders issued to him by a United States court.”
Story v. Robinson, 531 F. Supp. 627 (W.D. Pa. 1982). · cites it 2× “28 U.S.C. § 569 (b). Thus, in this case the United States Marshal would not be free to disregard a writ of habeas corpus directing him to personally obtain *631 custody of a state prisoner.”
Jack Rheuark v. Henry Wade & Mark White, Attorney Gen., 608 F.2d 304 (8th Cir. 1979). “Rheuark also argues that by accepting custody of Rheuark, the marshal accepted the responsibility for defending the legality of the Texas conviction. This argument is also without merit.”
Ballard v. Spradley, 557 F.2d 476 (5th Cir. 1977). “” 28 U.S.C. § 569 (a), (b). The Marshals Service argues that it lacks the funds to transport and return the expected influx of state prisoner-witnesses such as these, a factor which the district court considered in assessing whether the writ should issue.”
United States v. Pauly, 725 F. Supp. 923 (W.D. Mich. 1989). · cites it 2× “69(a) and 28 U.S.C. § 569 (b) or alternatively under MCR 2.”
Story v. Robinson, 689 F.2d 1176 (3rd Cir. 1982). · cites it 2× “The United States Marshal Service urges, we think correctly, that this obligation arises with respect to a writ of habeas corpus only when a custodian refuses to obey a writ.”
United States v. Barrett, 598 F. Supp. 469 (D. Me. 1984). “Title 28 U.S.C. § 569 (c) reads as follows: The Attorney General shall supervise and direct United States Marshals in the performance of public duties and accounting for public moneys.”
Show all 29 citing cases →
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.