Agriculture Law: morgan2

Embed Doc
Copy Link
Readcast
Collections

CommentGo Back

Download

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTUREBEFORE THE SECRETARY OF AGRICULTUREIn re:)AWA Docket No. 05-0032)Cheryl Morgan, an individual,)d/b/a Exotic Pet Co.,))Respondent)

Order Denying Petition to ReconsiderPROCEDURAL HISTORY

Kevin Shea, Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, UnitedStates Department of Agriculture [hereinafter Complainant], instituted this disciplinaryadministrative proceeding by filing a Complaint on September 9, 2005. Complainantinstituted the proceeding under the Animal Welfare Act, as amended (7 U.S.C. §§2131-2159) [hereinafter the Animal Welfare Act]; the regulations and standards issuedunder the Animal Welfare Act (9 C.F.R. §§ 1.1-3.142) [hereinafter the Regulations andStandards]; and the Rules of Practice Governing Formal Adjudicatory ProceedingsInstituted by the Secretary Under Various Statutes (7 C.F.R. §§ 1.130-.151) [hereinafter the Rules of Practice].Complainant alleges Cheryl Morgan [hereinafter Respondent] willfully violatedthe Regulations and Standards (Compl. ¶¶ 6-11). The Hearing Clerk served Respondent

2Memorandum to the File dated November 9, 2005, and signed by Tonya Fisher,

1

Legal Technician.Letter from Respondent to the United States Department of Agriculture, Office of

2

Administrative Law Judges, dated and filed December 28, 2005.with the Complaint, the Rules of Practice, and a service letter on November 9, 2005.

1

Respondent failed to file an answer to the Complaint within 20 days after service asrequired by section 1.136(a) of the Rules of Practice (7 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)).On December 6, 2005, in accordance with section 1.139 of the Rules of Practice(7 C.F.R. § 1.139), Complainant filed a Motion for Adoption of Proposed Decision andOrder [hereinafter Motion for Default Decision] and a proposed Decision and Order as toCheryl Morgan by Reason of Admission of Facts [hereinafter Proposed DefaultDecision]. On December 28, 2005, Respondent requested an extension of time withinwhich “to solve this misunderstanding.” On December 29, 2005, Acting Chief

2

Administrative Law Judge Jill S. Clifton [hereinafter the Acting Chief ALJ] grantedRespondent an extension of time within which to respond to Complainant’s Motion for Default Decision. On January 31, 2006, Respondent filed timely objections toComplainant’s Motion for Default Decision and Complainant’s Proposed DefaultDecision. On February 23, 2006, Complainant filed Complainant’s Reply toRespondent’s Objections to Motion for Adoption of Proposed Decision and Order.On March 29, 2006, Administrative Law Judge Peter M. Davenport [hereinafter the ALJ] issued a Decision and Order [hereinafter Initial Decision]: (1) concluding

3

In re Cheryl Morgan

, __ Agric. Dec. ___, slip op. at 6-7, 45 (July 6, 2006).

3

Respondent willfully violated the Regulations and Standards as alleged in the Complaint;(2) ordering Respondent to cease and desist from violating the Animal Welfare Act andthe Regulations and Standards; (3) assessing Respondent a $16,280 civil penalty; and(4) revoking Respondent’s Animal Welfare Act licenses (Animal Welfare Act licensenumber 74-C-0406 and Animal Welfare Act license number 74-B-0530) (Initial Decisionat 2-3, 22).On May 1, 2006, Respondent appealed to the Judicial Officer. On May 26, 2006,Complainant filed Complainant’s Response to Respondent’s Appeal Petition. On June 6,2006, the Hearing Clerk transmitted the record to the Judicial Officer for considerationand decision. On July 6, 2006, I issued a Decision and Order: (1) concluding Respondentwillfully violated the Regulations and Standards as alleged in the Complaint; (2) orderingRespondent to cease and desist from violating the Animal Welfare Act and theRegulations and Standards; (3) assessing Respondent a $16,280 civil penalty; and(4) revoking Respondent’s Animal Welfare Act licenses (Animal Welfare Act licensenumber 74-C-0406 and Animal Welfare Act license number 74-B-0530).

3

On July 21, 2006, Respondent filed a Petition for Reconsideration. On August 10,2006, Complainant filed a response to Respondent’s Petition for Reconsideration. OnAugust 11, 2006, the Hearing Clerk transmitted the record to the Judicial Officer for aruling on Respondent’s Petition for Reconsideration.

of 00

Leave a Comment