Fry v. Drug Enforcement Administration

Ninth Circuit

Fry v. Drug Enforcement Administration

200 F. App'x 651

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedAugust 29, 2006

DocketNo. 04-74561

StatusPublished

This text of 200 F. App'x 651 (Fry v. Drug Enforcement Administration) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Fry v. Drug Enforcement Administration, 200 F. App'x 651 (9th Cir. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

*

The Drug Enforcement Administration (“DEA”) did not abuse its discretion in denying Dr. Marion Fry’s request to reopen. See ICC v. Bhd. of Locomotive Eng’rs, 482 U.S. 270, 278, 107 S.Ct. 2360, 96 L.Ed.2d 222 (1987) (“overtiming the refusal to reopen requires a showing of the clearest abuse of discretion” (internal quotation omitted)). We lack jurisdiction over Dr. Fry’s concerns regarding the DEA’s initial revocation decision. Friends of Sierra R.R., Inc. v. ICC, 881 F.2d 663, 666 (9th Cir.1989) (“[A] subsequent unsuccessful petition to an agency to reopen cannot create a new final order giving our court jurisdiction over an untimely petition for review.”).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED IN PART, DISMISSED IN PART.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

MEMORANDUM

*

The Drug Enforcement Administration (“DEA”) did not abuse its discretion in denying Dr. Marion Fry’s request to reopen. See ICC v. Bhd. of Locomotive Eng’rs, 482 U.S. 270, 278, 107 S.Ct. 2360, 96 L.Ed.2d 222 (1987) (“overtiming the refusal to reopen requires a showing of the clearest abuse of discretion” (internal quotation omitted)). We lack jurisdiction over Dr. Fry’s concerns regarding the DEA’s initial revocation decision. Friends of Sierra R.R., Inc. v. ICC, 881 F.2d 663, 666 (9th Cir.1989) (“[A] subsequent unsuccessful petition to an agency to reopen cannot create a new final order giving our court jurisdiction over an untimely petition for review.”).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED IN PART, DISMISSED IN PART.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

200 F. App'x 651, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fry-v-drug-enforcement-administration-ca9-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack