Morris & Dickson Co. v. Whitaker

Decision Date28 December 2018
Docket NumberCIVIL ACTION NO.: 18-1406
Citation360 F.Supp.3d 434
CourtU.S. District Court — Western District of Louisiana
Parties MORRIS & DICKSON CO. v. Matthew G. WHITAKER, et al.

Franklin H. Spruiell, Jr., Reid Allen Jones, Wiener Weiss & Madison, Shreveport, LA, Jodi L. Avergun, Pro Hac Vice, Cadwalader Wickersham & Taft, Jeffrey R. Johnson, Pro Hac Vice, Michael A. Carvin, Pro Hac Vice, Jones Day, Washington, DC, Joshua P. Arnold, Pro Hac Vice, Keith Michael Gerver, Pro Hac Vice, William Nathan Simpson, Pro Hac Vice, Cadwalader Wickerman Taft, New York, NY, for Morris & Dickson Co.

Chetan Adinath Patil, U.S. Dept. of Justice, Anjali Motgi, U.S. Dept. of Justice Civil Division/Federal Programs, Washington, DC, for Matthew G. Whitaker, et al.



Morris & Dickson Co. ("Morris & Dickson") is a full-line pharmaceutical wholesaler, part of whose business consists of distributing controlled substances. [Record Document 1 at 6]. Concerned that Morris & Dickson had an insufficient program in place to prevent diversion of hydrocodone and oxycodone, the Drug Enforcement Administration ("DEA") began proceedings to revoke Morris & Dickson's authorization to distribute controlled substances. [Id. at 8]. Morris & Dickson filed the instant action, seeking to enjoin further proceedings before the DEA's Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ") on the grounds that he was unconstitutionally appointed and is unconstitutionally shielded from removal at will. [Id. at 13–16]. Because this Court lacks jurisdiction over Morris & Dickson's challenge to the ongoing administrative adjudication, this case is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE .

I. Background

Morris & Dickson holds two DEA registrations that allow it to distribute controlled substances. [Id. at 5]. On May 2, 2018, the Acting Administrator of the DEA began the process of revoking these registrations by issuing an Order to Show Cause and an Immediate Suspension of Registration ("ISO"), which asserted that Morris & Dickson maintained an inadequate anti-diversion program. [Id. at 8]. In response, Morris & Dickson filed suit to enjoin enforcement of the ISO. [Id. ]. Following a hearing before the undersigned, this Court temporarily restrained enforcement of the ISO, but allowed the revocation proceeding to go forward. [Id. at 9]. Before a hearing could be held on the motion for a preliminary injunction against the ISO, the DEA rescinded that order. [Id. ]. This Court then dismissed the case. Morris & Dickson Co. v. Sessions , No. 5:18-cv-605 (W.D. La. May 22, 2018).

The DEA ALJ, Charles Dorman, set the show-cause hearing on the DEA's allegations for November 13, 2018. [Record Document 1 at 11]. In order to prevent the hearing from going forward, Morris & Dickson filed this suit, which seeks an injunction and a declaratory judgment that further proceedings before Judge Dorman would violate the Constitution. [Record Documents 1 at 18 and 2 at 2–3].

Under the Appointments Clause of Article II, inferior officers of the United States must be appointed by the President, the courts, or the heads of executive departments. Lucia v. SEC , ––– U.S. ––––, 138 S.Ct. 2044, 2051, 201 L.Ed.2d 464 (2018) (citing U.S. Const. art. II, § 2, cl. 2 ). Morris & Dickson argues that DEA ALJs are inferior officers. [Record Document 1 at 11–13]. If they are, then they must be appointed by one of the three authorities listed in the Appointments Clause. See Lucia , 138 S.Ct. at 2051. The Controlled Substances Act ("CSA") incorporates by reference provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act ("APA") controlling ALJs' appointments and their employment protections. See 21 U.S.C. 824 (citing 5 U.S.C. 551 – 559 ).1 In accordance with these provisions, Judge Dorman was appointed by the DEA Administrator. [Record Document 1 at 14]. Morris & Dickson contends the DEA is not an executive department for purposes of the Appointments Clause because the DEA resides within the Department of Justice ("DOJ"). [Id. at 14–15]. If that is true, then the department head with the appointing power is the Attorney General, not the DEA Administrator. See 28 U.S.C. § 503. From this, Morris & Dickson concludes that Judge Dorman was unconstitutionally appointed. [Record Document 1 at 15].2

Morris & Dickson also alleges that the removal procedures for the DEA ALJs are unconstitutional. [Id. at 15–16]. The Constitution vests the President with the executive power, U.S. Const. art. II, § 1, cl. 1, and obligates him to "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed," id. art. II, § 3. These provisions are violated when officers have more than one layer of protection against removal at will. Free Enter. Fund v. Public Co. Accounting Oversight Bd. , 561 U.S. 477, 496, 130 S.Ct. 3138, 177 L.Ed.2d 706 (2010). DEA ALJs, such as Judge Dorman, may be removed by the agency "only for good cause established and determined by the Merit Systems Protection Board." 5 U.S.C. § 7521(a). Members of that board, in turn, "may be removed by the President only for inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office." 5 U.S.C. § 1202(d). Morris & Dickson argues that this double layer of for-cause protection unconstitutionally interferes with the President's obligation to take care that the laws are faithfully executed. [Record Document 1 at 16].

After reviewing Morris & Dickson's complaint, this Court ordered briefing on the question of jurisdiction. [Record Document 15]. Two days later, Judge Dorman cancelled the show-cause hearing, thereby mooting Morris & Dickson's request for an interim order enjoining it. [Record Documents 22 at 3 and 23 at 1]. After this Court set a schedule for ruling on jurisdiction and, if necessary, on the merits, Judge Dorman stayed the enforcement proceeding pending this Court's resolution of Morris & Dickson's constitutional case. [Record Documents 27, 28, and 30].

Defendants Matthew G. Whitaker (the Acting Attorney General), Uttam Dhillon (the Acting Administrator of the DEA), the DEA, the DOJ, and the United States (collectively, "Defendants") argue that this Court lacks jurisdiction and that Morris & Dickson's claims are unripe. [Record Document 24 at 7–19]. They believe that Supreme Court precedent requires Morris & Dickson to complete the administrative process and obtain a final order from the DEA Administrator before pursuing its constitutional claims in an appeals court. [Id. at 9–14]. Morris & Dickson contends that this Court has jurisdiction to enjoin unconstitutional administrative proceedings at any time and that, if this Court declines to exercise jurisdiction, Morris & Dickson will face the irreparable harm of forced participation in such a proceeding. [Record Document 26 at 2–8].

II. Law and Analysis

"Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction ...." Quinn v. Guerrero , 863 F.3d 353, 358 (5th Cir. 2017) (citing Arbaugh v. Y & H Corp. , 546 U.S. 500, 513, 126 S.Ct. 1235, 163 L.Ed.2d 1097 (2006) ). As a result, they have a "duty to continually, and sua sponte , assess their jurisdiction." USPPS, Ltd. v. Avery Dennison Corp. , 647 F.3d 274, 284 (5th Cir. 2011). Thus, this Court must determine whether it has subject matter jurisdiction over Morris & Dickson's constitutional claims, which have been raised in response to the ongoing administrative adjudication before Judge Dorman.

A. The Statutory Scheme

The CSA grants the DEA the authority to regulate, among other things, the distribution of controlled substances "with the goal of creating a closed system of distribution." Keysource Med. Inc. v. Holder , No. 1:11-cv-393, 2011 WL 3608097, at *1 (S.D. Ohio Aug. 16, 2011). Companies that distribute controlled substances, such as Morris & Dickson, must annually obtain a DEA registration. 21 U.S.C. § 822(a)(1) ; 21 C.F.R. § 1301.11(a). When evaluating a distributor's application, the DEA considers whether the registration is "inconsistent with the public interest" in light of the following factors:

(1) maintenance of effective control against diversion of particular controlled substances into other than legitimate medical, scientific, and industrial channels;
(2) compliance with applicable State and local law;
(3) prior conviction record of applicant under Federal or State laws relating to the manufacture, distribution, or dispensing of such substances;
(4) past experience in the distribution of controlled substances; and
(5) such other factors as may be relevant to and consistent with the public health and safety.

21 U.S.C. § 823(b). In order to reduce the risk of diversion, a distributor

shall design and operate a system to disclose to the registrant suspicious orders of controlled substances. The registrant shall inform the Field Division Office of the Administration in his area of suspicious orders when discovered by the registrant. Suspicious orders include orders of unusual size, orders deviating substantially from a normal pattern, and orders of unusual frequency.

21 C.F.R. § 1301.74(b).

The DEA Administrator may suspend or revoke a license on various grounds, including a "finding that the registrant ... has committed such acts as would render his registration under section 823 of this title inconsistent with the public interest as determined under such section." 21 U.S.C. § 824(a)(4). Before revoking a registration, the DEA must issue a rule to show cause describing the grounds for revocation and conduct a hearing in accordance with the APA. Id. § 824(c) ; 21 C.F.R. § 1301.37(c). Following the hearing, the presiding ALJ issues a report recommending findings of fact and conclusions of law; the ALJ forwards this report and the administrative record to the DEA Administrator. Id. § 1316.65(a),(c). The Administrator, as the Attorney General's delegate, then issues a final order, supported by findings of fact and conclusions of law. Id. § 1316.67. A party "aggrieved by a final decision" of the DEA Administrator may then appeal to the Court of Appeals for the ...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • Dembski v. Sec. & Exch. Comm'n, 1:19-CV-00358 EAW
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Western District of New York
    • February 4, 2020
    ...on the jurisdictional issue at hand"), appeal filed , No. 19-10396 (5th Cir. Apr. 9, 2019); Morris & Dickson Co. v. Whitaker , 360 F. Supp. 3d 434, 444 n.6, 447 (W.D. La. Dec. 28, 2018) ("[T]here is no reason to conclude that any strength of [plaintiff]'s Appointment Clause challenge [on th......
  • Raymond J. Lucia Cos. v. U.S. Sec. & Exch. Comm'n
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of California
    • August 21, 2019 meritorious they are, before the SEC and then before the applicable court of appeals."); Morris & Dickson Co. v. Whitaker, 360 F. Supp. 3d 434, 444 n.6, 447 (W.D. La. Dec. 28, 2018) ("[T]here is no reason to conclude that any strength of [plaintiff]'s Appointment Clause challenge [on th......
  • Eagle Water, LLC v. Arch Ins. Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Western District of Louisiana
    • December 28, 2018
  • Marchant ex rel. A.A.H v. Berryhill, CIVIL ACTION No. 18-0345
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania
    • May 28, 2019
    ...Carson, No. 17-0075, 2019 WL 108882 (D.D.C. Jan. 4, 2019) (Department of Housing and Urban Development ALJs); Morris & Dickson Co. v. Whitaker, 360 F. Supp. 3d 434 (W.D. La. 2018) (Drug Enforcement Agency ALJs); but see Lucia, 138 S. Ct. at 2056 (Thomas, J., concurring) ("If the special tri......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT