Fry v. Drug Enforcement Agency, No. 03-70379 (9th Cir. 12/8/2003), No. 03-70379.

CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)
Writing for the CourtBeam
PartiesMARION P. FRY, Dr., <I>Petitioner,</I> v. DRUG ENFORCEMENT AGENCY, <I>Respondent.</I>
Docket NumberNo. 03-70379.
Decision Date08 December 2003

Page 1

MARION P. FRY, Dr., Petitioner,
No. 03-70379.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Argued and Submitted October 7, 2003 — San Francisco, California
Filed December 8, 2003.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Drug Enforcement Agency. DEA No. BC4410-09-m.

Laurence J. Lichter and on brief, Nedra Ruiz, San Francisco, California, for the petitioner.

Mark T. Quinlivan, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for the respondent.

Before: Harry Pregerson, C. Arlen Beam,* and Richard A. Paez, Circuit Judges.

Page 2


BEAM, Circuit Judge:

Dr. Marion Fry petitions for review of the Drug Enforcement Administration's (DEA) final order and the denial of her

Page 3

request for reconsideration of that final order and to reopen the proceedings. We dismiss the request for review of the final order because we lack jurisdiction, and affirm the DEA's denial of Dr. Fry's motion to reopen the proceedings.


In March 2002, the DEA served Dr. Fry with an Order to Show Cause why it should not revoke her certificate of registration to dispense controlled substances, because her continued registration would be inconsistent with the public interest. See Controlled Substances Act, 21 U.S.C. §§ 801 et seq. (CSA). The DEA did not receive a hearing request from Dr. Fry in response to this March 2002 order, and on December 13, 2002, the agency entered a final order revoking Dr. Fry's DEA certificate of registration.1 The final order was published in the Federal Register on December 20, 2002. Marion "Molly" Fry, M.D.; Revocation of Registration, 67 Fed. Reg. 78,015 (Dec. 20, 2002). In response, counsel for Dr. Fry faxed a letter to the DEA on January 10, 2003, requesting that the DEA dissolve the final order revoking her registration and set an administrative hearing date. The Deputy Administrator of the DEA interpreted this fax as a request to reopen the revocation proceedings, and denied the request on January 17, 2003. On January 22, 2003, Dr. Fry filed her petition for review with this court. In this petition, Dr. Fry appeals both the final order of December 20, 2002, and the denial of the request to reopen issued on January 17, 2003.

Page 4

The DEA argues that the petition for review is untimely under the thirty-day time limit contained in 21 U.S.C. § 877 and this court does not have jurisdiction to consider Dr. Fry's challenge to the final order. The DEA asserts that we do have limited jurisdiction under section 877 to review the DEA's denial of Dr. Fry's January 10, 2003, request to reopen the proceedings, but only to the extent that the request was unlawfully denied.

Dr. Fry argues that she asked her then-attorney to respond to the March 2002 order by requesting a hearing, and was under the impression that after her attorney made that request, the DEA would set a hearing before revoking her certificate. Dr. Fry did not know that a hearing had not been requested until she received notice of the final order in December. Dr. Fry contends that the proceedings should be reopened because she has thus far been deprived of the opportunity to be heard.


[1] The narrow parameters of our review are set by the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 551 et seq. (APA), and this court may not substitute its judgment for the agency's. Arizona Cattle Growers' Ass'n v. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Bureau of Land Mgmt., 273 F.3d 1229, 1236 (9th Cir. 2001). Agency decisions may be set aside only if arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion or not in accordance with the law. 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A). As long as the agency's decision was based on a consideration of relevant factors and there is no clear error of judgment, the agency did not act in an arbitrary and capricious manner. Arizona Cattle Growers', 273 F.3d at 1236.

[2] Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 15(a) provides that "[r]eview of an agency order is commenced by filing, within the...

To continue reading

Request your trial

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