Lapas attēli
PDF
ePub

the United States Department of Agriculture "to have this matter favorably reviewed within the USDA system" and "filed all appropriate briefs and responses to motions numbering nearly 200 documents." (Response to Complainant's Second Motion to Lift Stay Order, and Motion for Permanent Stay at 1, 3.)

The Rules of Practice Governing Formal Adjudicatory Proceedings Instituted by the Secretary Under Various Statutes (7 C.F.R. §§ 1.130-.151) [hereinafter the Rules of Practice], which are applicable to this proceeding, are designed to promote the efficient and orderly conduct of adjudicatory proceedings. However, a party's observance of the Rules of Practice, by itself, does not entitle that party to prevail on the merits and does not provide a basis for the issuance of a permanent stay of an order.

Third, Respondent contends a United States Department of Agriculture mailing error made Respondent's compliance with the statutory deadline for filing an appeal impossible (Response to Complainant's Second Motion to Lift Stay Order, and Motion for Permanent Stay at 1-2).

The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit found the United States Department of Agriculture's mailing error did not completely excuse Respondent's untimely appeal because Respondent had an affirmative duty to monitor the United States Department of Agriculture's docket to determine if the Judicial Officer had ruled on Respondent's petition for reconsideration. The Court held that had Respondent monitored the docket, he could have filed a timely appeal. 10 Therefore, I reject Respondent's contention that the United States Department of Agriculture made Respondent's compliance with the statutory deadline for filing an appeal impossible.

Fourth, Respondent contends the attorney for the United States Department of Agriculture had a legal responsibility to inform the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit that the United States Department of Agriculture does not maintain a published docket of its cases where parties can check the status of cases (Response to Complainant's Second Motion to Lift Stay Order, and Motion for Permanent Stay at 2).

Respondent cites no basis for his contention that a party to a United States Department of Agriculture adjudicatory proceeding cannot determine the status of the proceeding. As the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit indicated, Respondent could have, but did not, call the Office of the Hearing

10 Reinhart v. United States Dep't of Agric., 39 Fed. Appx. 954, 956-57 (6th Cir. 2002).

62 Agric. Dec. 692

Clerk to determine the status of his petition for reconsideration."

Fifth, Respondent contends the United States Department of Agriculture will not accept responsibility for its failure to serve Respondent with the January 23, 2001, Order Denying William J. Reinhart's Petition for Reconsideration prior to the expiration of the time for Respondent's appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit (Response to Complainant's Second Motion to Lift Stay Order, and Motion for Permanent Stay at 3).

Respondent cites no basis for his contention that the United States Department of Agriculture failed to take responsibility for the failure to serve him with the January 23, 2001, Order Denying William J. Reinhart's Petition for Reconsideration prior to the expiration of the time for appeal. Contrary to Respondent's contention, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit states the United States Department of Agriculture conceded error in connection with the mailing of the January 23, 2001, Order Denying William J. Reinhart's Petition for Reconsideration, as follows:

The USDA, however, concedes that a clerical error on its part contributed to Reinhart's delay in filing his notice of appeal. Specifically, the USDA's Office of the Hearing Clerk mistakenly sent Reinhart a decision from a totally unrelated case rather than the order denying his petition for reconsideration. The record does not indicate when Reinhart received this decision, but the USDA acknowledges that Reinhart notified it of the mistake and that the decision from his case was then sent out to him on February 15, 2001. Reinhart did not receive this order until February 26, 2001, 34 days after the order was issued and 4 days after the time period for appealing that order had expired.

Reinhart v. United States Dep't of Agric., 39 Fed. Appx. 954, 955-56 (6th Cir. 2002).

Therefore, I reject Respondent's contention that the United States Department of Agriculture failed to take responsibility for the failure to serve Respondent with the January 23, 2001, Order Denying William J. Reinhart's Petition for Reconsideration prior to the expiration of the time for appeal.

"Reinhart v. United States Dep't of Agric., 39 Fed. Appx. 954, 956-57 (6th Cir. 2002).

RESPONDENT'S MOTION TO AMEND CASE CAPTION

Respondent "takes exception to Complainant's repeated attempts to include Reinhart Stables as a party to these proceedings." (Response to Complainant's Second Motion to Lift Stay Order, and Motion for Permanent Stay at 3.)

I found Reinhart Stables was merely a name under which William J. Reinhart did business and concluded that "William J. Reinhart, doing business as Reinhart Stables," violated the Horse Protection Act. 12 Based on the finding that Reinhart Stables was merely a name under which William J. Reinhart was doing business, I conclude Reinhart Stables is not a proper party in this proceeding. Therefore, I amend the caption of this proceeding to read "In re: William J. Reinhart, d/b/a Reinhart Stables."

ORDER

1. William J. Reinhart is assessed a $2,000 civil penalty. The civil penalty shall be paid by certified check or money order made payable to the "Treasurer of the United States" and sent to:

Colleen A. Carroll

United States Department of Agriculture

Office of the General Counsel

Marketing Division

Room 2343 South Building

Washington, DC 20250-1417

William J. Reinhart's payment of the civil penalty shall be forwarded to, and received by, Ms. Carroll within 60 days after service of this Order on William J. Reinhart. William J. Reinhart shall indicate on the certified check or money order that payment is in reference to HPA Docket No. 99-0013.

2. William J. Reinhart is disqualified for a period of 5 years from showing, exhibiting, or entering any horse directly or indirectly through any agent, employee, or device, and from managing, judging, or otherwise participating in any horse show, horse exhibition, horse sale, or horse auction. "Participating" means engaging in any activity beyond that of a spectator, and includes, without limitation: (a) transporting or arranging for the

12In re William J. Reinhart, 59 Agric. Dec. 721, 731, 738, 766-68 (2000).

62 Agric. Dec. 699

transportation of horses to or from any horse show, horse exhibition, horse sale, or horse auction; (b) personally giving instructions to exhibitors; (c) being present in the warm-up areas, inspection areas, or other areas where spectators are not allowed at any horse show, horse exhibition, horse sale, or horse auction; and (d) financing the participation of others in any horse show, horse exhibition, horse sale, or horse auction.

This 5-year period of disqualification is to be served consecutive to the disqualification of William J. Reinhart ordered in In re Jack Stepp, 57 Agric. Dec. 297 (1998), aff'd, 188 F.3d 508 (Table), 1999 WL 646138 (6th Cir. 1999) (not to be cited as precedent under 6th Circuit Rule 206). The disqualification shall become effective on the 60th day after service of this Order on William J. Reinhart.

In re: WILLIAM J. REINHART, d/b/a REINHART STABLES.
HPA Docket No. 99-0013.

Rulings Denying: (1) Motion to Set Aside Order Lifting Stay; (2) Motion for Permanent Stay; and (3) Motion for Taking Depositions.

Filed October 10, 2003.

Colleen A. Carroll, for Complainant.

Respondent, Pro se.

Rulings issued by William G. Jenson, Judicial Officer.

HPA - Decision, initial, when not - Rules of procedure.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On November 9, 2000, pursuant to the Rules of Practice Governing Formal Adjudicatory Proceedings Instituted by the Secretary Under Various Statutes (7C.F.R. §§ 1.130-.151) [hereinafter the Rules of Practice], I issued a Decision and Order concluding William J. Reinhart, d/b/a Reinhart Stables [hereinafter Respondent], violated the Horse Protection Act of 1970, as amended.' Respondent filed a petition for reconsideration, which I denied on January 23,

'In re William J. Reinhart, 59 Agric. Dec. 721 (2000).

2001.2 Respondent requested a stay of the Order in In re William J. Reinhart, 60 Agric. Dec. 241 (2001) (Order Denying William J. Reinhart's Pet. for Recons.), pending the outcome of proceedings for judicial review. On June 20, 2001, I granted Respondent's request for a stay.3 3

Respondent appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit which dismissed Respondent's late-filed appeal for lack of jurisdiction.* On April 21, 2003, the Supreme Court of the United States denied Respondent's petition for writ of certiorari."

On July 22, 2003, Complainant requested that I lift the June 20, 2001, Stay Order on the ground that proceedings for judicial review have concluded. Respondent filed a response to Complainant's motion to lift the stay order, a motion for a permanent stay, and a motion to amend the case caption. On September 8, 2003, I issued an "Order Lifting Stay, Ruling Denying Motion for Permanent Stay, and Ruling Granting Motion to Amend Case Caption.” On September 30, 2003, Respondent filed "Petition for Reconsideration of Order Lifting Stay, Ruling Denying Motion for Permanent Stay, and Ruling Granting Motion to Amend Case Caption." On October 7, 2003, Complainant filed "Complainant's Reply to Respondent's Petition for Reconsideration of Order Lifting Stay." On October 8, 2003, the Hearing Clerk transmitted the record of the proceeding to the Judicial Officer for a ruling on Respondent's Petition for Reconsideration of Order Lifting Stay, Ruling Denying Motion for Permanent Stay, and Ruling Granting Motion to Amend Case Caption.

997

'In re William J. Reinhart, 60 Agric. Dec. 241 (2001) (Order Denying William J. Reinhart's Pet. for Recons.).

In re William J. Reinhart, 60 Agric. Dec. 267 (2001) (Stay Order).

'Reinhart v. United States Dep't of Agric., 39 Fed. Appx. 954, 2002 WL 1492097 (6th Cir.

2002).

'Reinhart v. Department of Agric., 123 S. Ct. 1802 (2003).

"In re William J. Reinhart, 62 Agric. Dec. (Sept. 8, 2003) (Order Lifting Stay, Ruling Denying Motion for Permanent Stay, and Ruling Granting Motion to Amend Case Caption).

"The title of Respondent's September 30, 2003, filing indicates that Respondent requests reconsideration of the September 8, 2003, ruling granting Respondent's request to amend the case caption. However, the body of Respondent's September 30, 2003, filing does not include a request for reconsideration of the ruling granting Respondent's request to amend the case caption.

« iepriekšējāTurpināt »