Case 5:18-cv-00605-EEF-MLH Document 1 Filed 05/03/18 Page 1 of 16 PageID #: 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
SHREVEPORT DIVISION

MORRIS & DICKSON CO., LLC CIVIL ACTION NO. _______________

v. JUDGE___________________________

JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS, III, ET AL MAGISTRATE JUDGE______________

COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Plaintiffs, Morris & Dickson Co., LLC and Morris & Dickson Co., LLC d/b/a Spark Drug,

Inc., for its complaint against Defendants the Honorable Jefferson B. Sessions, in his official

capacity as Attorney General of the United States, the U.S. Department of Justice, the Honorable

Robert W Patterson, in his official capacity as Acting Administrator of the Drug Enforcement

Administration, and the Drug Enforcement Administration (“DEA”), alleges as follows:

INTRODUCTION

1. This is an action under the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 551-706

(“APA”), challenging an Order To Show Cause and Immediate Suspension of Registration (the

“License Suspension Order”) issued on May 2, 2018 and served on Morris & Dickson on May 3,

2018. Immediate relief from the License Suspension Order–which was issued and took effect

without any notice or opportunity to be heard is necessary to prevent irreparable injury to Morris

& Dickson, its customers, and the public.

2. The Controlled Substances Act (“CSA”) permits the DEA (exercising authority

delegated from the Attorney General) to issue an immediate suspension only where necessary to

prevent “imminent danger to the public health or safety.” 21 U.S.C. § 824(d). Unless this

heightened standard is met, DEA cannot circumvent mandatory administrative procedures

designed to give a registrant notice and an opportunity to be heard before it is suspended. ld.§

824(c). DEA cannot meet the heightened standard here.

-1-
Case 5:18-cv-00605-EEF-MLH Document 1 Filed 05/03/18 Page 2 of 16 PageID #: 2

PARTIES

3. Plaintiff, Morris & Dickson, LLC, is a Louisiana limited liability company, with its

principal place of business at 10301 Highway 1 South, Shreveport, Louisiana, 71115.

4. Defendant Jefferson B. Sessions, III, is named in his official capacity as the

Attorney General of the United States. Under 21 U.S.C. § 824(d), it is the Attorney General that

is given the authority to “suspend any registration simultaneously with the institution of

proceedings under this section, in cases where he finds that there is an imminent danger to the

public health or safety.” The Attorney General has delegated that authority to the DEA

Administrator. See 28 C.F.R. § 0.100.

5. Defendant U.S. Department of Justice is an executive department of the United

States. See 5 U.S.C. § 101; 28 U.S.C. § 501. The head of the Department of Justice is the Attorney

General. See 28 U.S.C. § 503.

6. Defendant Robert W. Patterson is named in his official capacity as the Acting

Administrator of the DEA. The Attorney General's authority to immediately suspend a registrant

pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 824(d) has been delegated to him. See 28 C.F.R. § 0.100.

7. Defendant DEA is a component of the U.S. Department of Justice. It was created

by Executive Order 11,727. See 38 Fed. Reg. 18357 (July 10, 1973).

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

8. This action arises under the Constitution of the United States, the CSA, and the

APA This Court has subject-matter jurisdiction over this action under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. The

Court is authorized to issue the non-monetary relief sought herein pursuant to 5 U.S.C. §§ 702,

705, and 706.

-2-
Case 5:18-cv-00605-EEF-MLH Document 1 Filed 05/03/18 Page 3 of 16 PageID #: 3

9. Venue is proper in this Court under 28 U.S.C. § 139l(e)(1)(B) because a substantial

part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred in this District.

BACKGROUND

A. Regulatory Scheme

10. The CSA and its implementing regulations establish controls and restrictions on

the import, export, manufacture, and distribution of controlled substances. 21 U.S.C. § 80 I et

seq.; id. § 951 et seq.; 21 C.F.R. Part 1300 et seq. The distribution of controlled substances without

a DEA registration is a felony offense. 21 U.S.C. § 84l(a). DEA is tasked with enforcing the

CSA in a balanced manner that prevents the diversion of controlled substances from legitimate

channels while ensuring their availability for legitimate medical purposes. 76 Fed. Reg. 39,318

(July 6, 2011).

11. Under the CSA, DEA can revoke, restrict, or suspend a registration upon one of

five findings, only one of which is relevant here-that the registrant has committed acts that render

the registration inconsistent with the public interest. 21 U.S.C. § 824(a)(4). Prior to revoking or

restricting a DEA registration, DEA must generally follow procedures designed to provide a

registrant with notice and an opportunity to be heard. It must issue an order to show cause setting

forth the basis for the agency's proposed action and providing the registrant with the opportunity

to request a hearing. See id. § 824(c). At such a hearing, the government has the burden of proving

by a preponderance of evidence that registration is inconsistent with the public interest. 21 C.F.R.

§ 1301.44(d).

12. The DEA may issue a License Suspension Order without providing a registrant with

prior notice or an opportunity to respond to the allegations against it only if the continued

registration poses an “imminent danger” to the public health and safety. The relevant statutory
-3-
Case 5:18-cv-00605-EEF-MLH Document 1 Filed 05/03/18 Page 4 of 16 PageID #: 4

provision states:

The Attorney General may, in his discretion, suspend any registration simultaneously with
the institution of proceedings under this section, in cases where he finds that there is an
imminent danger to the public health or safety. ... A suspension under this subsection shall
continue in effect until the conclusion of such proceedings, including judicial review
thereof, unless sooner withdrawn by the Attorney General or dissolved by a court of
competent jurisdiction.

21 U.S.C. § 824(d) (emphasis added).

13. The governing regulation specifies:

The Administrator may suspend any registration simultaneously with or at any time
subsequent to the service upon the registrant of an order to show cause why such
registration should not be revoked or suspended, in any case where he/she finds that there
is an imminent danger to the public health or safety. If the Administrator so suspends,
he/she shall serve with the order to show cause pursuant to§ 1301.37 an order of immediate
suspension which shall contain a statement of his findings regarding the danger to public
health or safety.

21 C.F.R. § 1301.36(e) (emphasis added).

B. Morris & Dickson.

14. Morris & Dickson was founded in, and has operated continually since, 1841, or

for 177 years. It is a family owned and operated business, and is the largest independently owned

and privately held drug wholesale distributor in the nation. It operates out of a single distribution

center in Shreveport, LA.

15. Morris & Dickson holds two DEA licenses, one for the Shreveport distribution

center, and one for a small regional transportation hub in Jefferson Parish, La. The DEA’s

suspension involves both licenses, and thus, enforcement of the License Suspension Order would

completely and entirely prevent Morris & Dickson’s from servicing its sector of the healthcare

service industry.

-4-
Case 5:18-cv-00605-EEF-MLH Document 1 Filed 05/03/18 Page 5 of 16 PageID #: 5

16. One hundred percent of Morris & Dickson’s drug volume is shipped out of its

Shreveport warehouse. Morris & Dickson’s Shreveport distribution center serves pharmacies,

hospitals, and alternate care clinics such as nursing homes in 17 states. A suspension of Morris &

Dickson’s Shreveport DEA registration will function to completely stop the flow of necessary

drugs for surgeries, pain treatment, nursing homes, hospice, and all other legitimate, medical uses

for DEA licensed narcotic drugs for Morris & Dickson’s entire market share in seventeen U.S.

states.

C. The License Suspension Order.

16. On May 3, 2018, without any warning whatsoever, the DEA served Morris &

Dickson with Order to Show Cause and Immediate Suspension of Registration” (hereinafter the

“License Suspension Order”), a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit A. The License

Suspension Order immediately suspends Morris and Dickson’s Certificates of Registration Nos.

RM0314790 and RM0335732. This, in turn, requires Morris & Dickson to immediately halt

shipment of all controlled substances-including important medications used to treat seizures,

cancer patients, and children with attention deficit disorder, to hundreds, if not thousands of

customer accounts, including pharmacies and hospitals serving thousands of patients.

MORRIS & DICKSON IS ENTITLED TO INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

17. Morris & Dickson respectfully requests a temporary, preliminary, and permanent

injunctive relief to enjoin enforcement of the License Suspension Order

18. DEA does not allege that Morris & Dickson has provided controlled substances to

anyone not licensed by DEA to receive them. Rather, DEA has taken the extraordinary step of

issuing the License Suspension Order because it contends that specified Morris & Dickson’s DEA-

registered pharmacy customers have filled “unusually large” prescriptions for oxycodone and

-5-
Case 5:18-cv-00605-EEF-MLH Document 1 Filed 05/03/18 Page 6 of 16 PageID #: 6

hydrocodone. For the reasons explained below, all of the relevant factors for evaluating whether

to issue a injunctive relief favor relief here.

19. Likelihood of Success. Morris & Dickson is likely to succeed on the merits of its

challenge to the License Suspension Order. A License Suspension Order is DEA’s most powerful

enforcement sanction. It can be imposed without advance notice and without an opportunity for a

hearing, and it has the potential to destroy businesses and livelihoods. License Suspension Orders

are therefore reserved for addressing only the most dangerous activities of the most serious

violators.

20. The caselaw and the governing statute are clear: a License Suspension Order cannot

be imposed unless DEA establishes that it is necessary to prevent an imminent danger to the public

health or safety. See 21 U.S.C. § 824(d). Here, DEA cannot meet that burden for the following

reasons.

21. Immediate suspension of the Morris & Dickson’s licenses to distribute controlled

substances is unnecessary to address the problem DEA alleges “unusually large” orders by the

pharmacies identified in the License Suspension Order.

22. As set forth below, many of the facts alleged in the License Suspension Order are

inaccurate and/or misleading. Specifically, the License Suspension Order identifies the following

customers:

a. Wallace Drug Company, Inc. d/b/a Wallace Discount Drugs

b. Bordelon’s Super-Save Pharmacy
c. Folse Pharmacy
d. Pharmacy Specialties Group, Inc.
e. Dave’s Pharmacy
f. Hephzibah Pharmacy LLC
g. The Wellness Pharmacy, Inc.
h. Wilkinson Family Pharmacy

-6-
Case 5:18-cv-00605-EEF-MLH Document 1 Filed 05/03/18 Page 7 of 16 PageID #: 7

23. Morris & Dickson no longer does business with Wilkinson Family Pharmacy (lost

its license), The Wellness Pharmacy, Inc. (closed), and Hephzibah Pharmacy LLC (no longer a

customer).

24. With respect to the other customers cited in DEA’s License Suspension Order:

Wallace Drug Company

DEA intentionally misrepresents notes produced by Morris & Dickson Compliance Officer

Clara Guinn by omitting material facts, which if quoted in full, would clearly show that shipments

to Wallace Drug Company Inc. on January 9, 2018, were not in fact suspicious, and the potentially

excessive orders were in fact returned to Morris & Dickson after shipment as a result of Ms.

Guinn’s due diligence.

Contrary to the DEA’s statement that Morris & Dickson did not conduct any due diligence

following a notation that Wallace Drug was ordering higher than normal amounts, Morris &

Dickson pro-actively conducted due diligence by contacting the customer directly and obtaining a

return of the drugs at issue. The full quotation below shows that Morris & Dickson Compliance

officer Clara Guinn conducted due diligence regarding the potentially suspicious order by

contacting the local salesman, Tommy Tingstrom, and then calling the pharmacist directly:

FW6006363 1/9/2018 Might need to check on this guy he has ordered 12 bottles of
1,000 hydrocodone/apap 10/325 item 51627 the last two days and has another order in
today for 12 more, so 36 bottles of 1,000 in three days Vault

FW6006363 1/9/2018 Also got 12 of the 5mg 1,000 and 24 of the 7.5mg
1,000………so looks like he is hitting this stuff hard!

FW6006363 1/9/2018 I contacted his salesman, Tommy T. to find out what was
going on. Customer was stocking up because he had heard that Hydrocodone was in short
supply, that other pharmacies were having problems getting shipments. I told Tommy to
let him know that we had stock & that we did not allow customers to 'Stock Up'. I gave
Tim a couple of scenarios to discuss with him. 1. What if he was audited and had to
explain the excessive stock? 2. What if he were robbed and had to explain the excessive
stock. Tim will also let him know we have stopped today's shipment and that I recommend

-7-
Case 5:18-cv-00605-EEF-MLH Document 1 Filed 05/03/18 Page 8 of 16 PageID #: 8

that he return these items for credit & continue his normal ordering habits. Within an hour,
he sent a request for a return blank. CG

The final line, “Within the hour, he sent a request for a return blank” establishes that the Wallace

Drug pharmacist was requesting a return blank to return the drugs which were over-ordered.

There was no indication to the Morris & Dickson Compliance team that the pharmacist

was engaging in diversion. To the contrary, the pharmacist explained, in the telephone

conversation with Clara Guinn, that he was ordering extra of certain narcotics to “stock up” in

response to supply issues. Morris & Dickson’s action, is a clear example of practical due diligence

to address a potentially suspicious order and combat diversion. Morris & Dickson obtained a return

of all excessive drugs ordered.

The full quotation of Clara Guinn’s notes was provided in response to the DEA’s second

subpoena regarding potentially suspicious orders on March 30, 2018. The DEA’s failure to include

the entire quotation constitutes a material omission of fact, which if included would reasonably

explain why Morris & Dickson did not regard this order as suspicious, and would also establish

that Morris & Dickson conducted the required due diligence.

Bordelon’s Super-Save Pharmacy

DEA cites stale statistics. In the last six (6) months, Morris & Dickson’s shipments of

opioids to this pharmacy have reduced by 14%.

Folse Pharmacy

DEA cites stale statistics. In the last six (6) months, Morris & Dickson’s shipments of

opioids to this pharmacy have reduced by 33%.

Dave’s Pharmacy

DEA cites stale statistics. In the last six (6) months, Morris & Dickson’s shipments of

opioids to this pharmacy have reduced by 6%.

-8-
Case 5:18-cv-00605-EEF-MLH Document 1 Filed 05/03/18 Page 9 of 16 PageID #: 9

25. In addition to the above, Morris & Dickson maintains a vigorous and robust anti-

diversion system. Indeed, Morris & Dickson’s anti-diversion system, in important aspects, is

more comprehensive than DEA's own enforcement efforts. The quantity of opioids shipped by

Morris & Dickson to pharmacies has significantly decreased in recent years. Attached as Exhibit

B is a chart showing the reduction in quantities of opioids shipped to each state in the last two

years. These reductions show that Morris & Dickson’s systems are indeed working.

26. More importantly, Morris & Dickson agrees to immediately terminate

shipments of controlled substances to all customers identified in the License Suspension

Order until such time as the Court holds a hearing and and/or the License Suspension Order

is lifted.

27. It is undisputed that Morris & Dickson has distributed controlled substances only

to DEA-registered pharmacies and health care facilities. DEA does not allege that Morris &

Dickson has sold or distributed a single dose of oxycodone or hydrocodone outside this closed

system of authorized distribution. The sole bases for DEA’s License Suspension Order against the

Morris & Dickson is its allegations concerning “unusually large” orders and diversion of drugs.

28. The License Suspension Order will not halt or reduce diversion of controlled

substances by anyone and, therefore, does not diminish the “imminent danger” that DEA alleges.

The customers of Morris & Dickson that retain DEA registrations will continue to receive

controlled substances from other distributors. In fact, because these distributors may not have the

same robust anti-diversion controls as Morris & Dickson does, the License Suspension Order likely

will exacerbate the risk of diversion, if it has any effect at all.

-9-
Case 5:18-cv-00605-EEF-MLH Document 1 Filed 05/03/18 Page 10 of 16 PageID #: 10

29. Immediate Irreparable Harm. A TRO is also necessary to prevent irreparable

harm to Morris & Dickson and its customers. Morris & Dickson has one distribution facility in

Shreveport, Louisiana. From that facility, Morris & Dickson supplies all of its customers—

hundreds of hospitals, pharmacies, alternative care providers, and other health care providers.

Morris & Dickson’s customers require prompt delivery of controlled substances for thousands of

oncology, surgery, urgent care, emergency room, and hospice care patients.

30. In the absence of a TRO, DEA’s actions will cause serious disruption in the supply

chain for controlled substances, resulting in delays in treatment for legitimate patients already

facing drug shortages. Make no mistake—this is a life and death situation. Morris & Dickson

services 30-40% of the hospital drug market in Louisiana and Texas alone. If Morris & Dickson

cannot ship needed medications to these hospitals, these hospitals may face immediate drug

shortages. Due to exclusive supply arrangements at some of these facilities, the hospitals and

alternate care facilities will not have a source in the short term to obtain clinically necessary and

life-saving medications outside of the Morris & Dickson supply chain.

31. Many of these of these customers are Louisiana and Texas Hospitals including

University Health Center, Shreveport, Willis Knighton Health Systems, Shreveport, Children’s

Hospital, Touro Infirmary, University Medical Center, and Jefferson Medical Center in New

Orleans, Baton Rouge General Hospital, Baton Rouge, LA, Lafayette General Medical Center,

Children’s Hospital in New Orleans and Dallas, Texas Children’s Hospital, Houston, University

of Texas Southwest Medical Center, Dallas, Methodist Hospital System, Houston and many

others. Hospital customers are dependent on receiving next day and same day shipments from

Morris & Dickson. In addition, in urgent situations, i.e. where the hospital emergency room had a

sudden shortage in a particular medication, the Shreveport distribution center could provide an

- 10 -
Case 5:18-cv-00605-EEF-MLH Document 1 Filed 05/03/18 Page 11 of 16 PageID #: 11

emergency shipment to that customer in as little as three to six (6) hours. If this suspension of

licensing is enforced, Morris & Dickson could not make emergency shipments to any hospitals in

Louisiana, Texas, or any other of the 17 states it serves. Due to Morris & Dickson’s single

distribution point model, it has no alternate method to get shipments to hospitals, pharmacies or

nursing homes.

32. Any delays in delivery of shipments by Morris & Dickson to hospital customers will

cause delays in treatment of patients, including seriously ill or terminally ill patients in need of

medication. A hospital’s needs for controlled substances are ever-changing and unpredictable.

Most hospitals do not store large volumes of controlled substances but rather have "just-in-time"

inventory levels. Therefore, many hospitals place daily or even more urgent orders with Morris &

Dickson as their needs change, i.e. as patients present themselves in the emergency room with

unforeseen injuries and illnesses. These hospitals will not receive deliveries of any kind, including

rush deliveries, if the suspension is enforced.

33. If a hospital fails to receive timely orders of controlled substances, patients will

experience delays in treatment, and hospitals will experience immediate drug shortages. Unlike

outpatients, hospital inpatients cannot seek relief from a neighboring pharmacy when the hospital

is experiencing delays or shortages in pain medications. Thus, when a hospital experiences a

shortage, its only choices are to delay treatment with pain medication, to administer a less effective

treatment, or to delay other therapies, such as surgery, until the hospital receives an adequate

supply. With no ability to ship controlled drugs, hospitals within Morris & Dickson’s distribution

network will be denied access to critically necessary, and lifesaving medication.

- 11 -
Case 5:18-cv-00605-EEF-MLH Document 1 Filed 05/03/18 Page 12 of 16 PageID #: 12

34. If remedy is not granted to Morris & Dickson to stay the license suspension, Morris

& Dickson Hospital, pharmacy and nursing home customers will have to contract with a new DEA

licensed wholesaler. The transition process between vendors, during which the wholesaler

procures an adequate supply to meet the demands of the hospital, takes no less than two weeks and

up to one month. In the meantime, hospitals currently supplied by Morris & Dickson will face drug

shortages.

35. This also would also cause severe and irreparable harm to Morris & Dickson. The

company would suffer significant damage to its business reputation and loss of customer goodwill.

Some customers will likely stop doing business with Morris & Dickson and never return.

Additionally, the License Suspension Order will cause Morris & Dickson to lose significant

revenue that it could never recover. Morris & Dickson has no adequate remedy at law if this Court

does not immediately enjoin DEA from enforcement of the License Suspension Order.

36. Balance of Hardships. The balance of hardships also supports issuing a TRO. As

explained above, there is no imminent danger to the public health that requires an immediate

suspension of Morris & Dickson’s licenses. Also, in the same notice as the License Suspension

Order, DEA served an Order to Show Cause, initiating a DEA administrative process for

considering whether revocation of the Morris & Dickson’s registration is appropriate. See Ex. A.

In either case, DEA would be required to give advance notice to Morris & Dickson and provide it

an opportunity to respond to the allegations against it. But in the absence of an imminent danger

to the public, there is no need or legal basis to deprive Morris & Dickson of the process afforded

by law.

- 12 -
Case 5:18-cv-00605-EEF-MLH Document 1 Filed 05/03/18 Page 13 of 16 PageID #: 13

37. Public Interest. Finally, the public interest weighs heavily in favor of granting a

TRO. As noted above, the License Suspension Order is not necessary to prevent any imminent

harm to the public. By delaying shipments, however, a TRO would cause injury to the numerous

patients that depend on Morris & Dickson for an uninterrupted supply of medications for their

legitimate medical needs. Accordingly, Morris & Dickson respectfully requests that the Court

temporarily enjoin enforcement of the License Suspension Order until the Court can rule on a

motion for a preliminary injunction to be filed by Morris & Dickson.

COUNT I (No Statutory Authority)

38. Morris & Dickson incorporates the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.

39. The License Suspension Order is agency action made reviewable by 21 U.S.C. §

824(d).

40. Morris & Dickson is adversely affected and aggrieved by the License Suspension

Order.

41. The License Suspension Order is not authorized under 21 U.S.C. § 824(d) because

Defendants did not demonstrate that immediate suspension of Morris & Dickson’s licenses,

without prior notice or an opportunity to be heard, was necessary to prevent "imminent danger to

the public health or safety."

42. Defendants accordingly did not have the statutory authority to issue the License

Suspension Order.

43. The License Suspension Order also therefore exceeds the statutory jurisdiction of

defendants and the limits imposed in 21 U.S.C. § 824(d).

44. As a result, the License Suspension Order is not in accordance with law, in violation

of 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A), and is in excess of statutory authority, jurisdiction, and limitations, in

- 13 -
Case 5:18-cv-00605-EEF-MLH Document 1 Filed 05/03/18 Page 14 of 16 PageID #: 14

violation of 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(C).

COUNT II (Due Process)

54. Morris & Dickson incorporates the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.

55. The License Suspension Order is agency action made reviewable by 21 U.S.C. §

824(d).

56. Morris & Dickson is adversely affected and aggrieved by the License Suspension

Order.

57. The License Suspension Order denied Morris & Dickson prior notice of the

allegations against it and a meaningful opportunity to contest those allegations prior to its

suspension.

58. Depriving Morris & Dickson of prior notice of the allegations against it and a

meaningful opportunity to contest those allegations prior to its suspension was not necessary to

further any governmental interest, increased significantly the prospect of an erroneous deprivation

of Morris & Dickson’s rights, and impaired the property interests of Morris & Dickson.

59. Accordingly, the License Suspension Order is contrary to constitutional right,

power, privilege, or immunity, in violation of 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(B).

COUNT III (Arbitrary and Capricious)

60. Morris & Dickson incorporates the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.

61. The License Suspension Order is agency action made reviewable by 21 U.S.C. §

824(d).

62. Morris & Dickson is adversely affected and aggrieved by the License Suspension

Order.

- 14 -
Case 5:18-cv-00605-EEF-MLH Document 1 Filed 05/03/18 Page 15 of 16 PageID #: 15

63. Defendants’ decision to issue the License Suspension Order was arbitrary and

capricious. Defendants failed to engage in reasoned decision-making; to consider important

aspects of the problem they believed they faced; to consider more narrowly tailored remedies and

the impact that the License Suspension Order would have on the public health; and to provide an

adequate explanation for their decision. The License Suspension Order is also premised upon data

that Morris & Dickson has not had adequate opportunity to review.

64. Accordingly, the License Suspension Order is arbitrary, capricious, and otherwise are

not in accordance with the law, in violation of 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A).

COUNT IV (Inadequate Findings)

65. Morris & Dickson incorporates the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein

66. The License Suspension Order is agency action made reviewable by 21 U.S.C. § 824(d).

67. Morris & Dickson is adversely affected and aggrieved by the License Suspension Order.

68. An order under 21 U.S.C. § 824(d) immediately suspending a registrant “shall contain a

statement of his findings regarding the danger to public health or safety.” 21 C.F.R.§

1301.36(e).

69. The License Suspension Order lacked an adequate statement of the Administrator's

findings regarding the danger to public health or safety that allegedly would be caused by

Morris & Dickson’s continued use of its controlled substance distribution licenses.

70. Therefore, the License Suspension Order was issued “without observance of procedure

required by law.” 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(D).

- 15 -
Case 5:18-cv-00605-EEF-MLH Document 1 Filed 05/03/18 Page 16 of 16 PageID #: 16

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Morris & Dickson prays that this Court:

1. Declare the License Suspension Order unlawful.

2. Vacate and set aside the License Suspension Order.

3. Issue all process necessary and appropriate to postpone the effective date of the

License Suspension Order and to maintain the status quo pending the conclusion of this

case, including issuance of a temporary restraining order, preliminary and permanent

injunctions.

4. Award Morris & Dickson its costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees as appropriate.

5. Grant such further and other relief as this Court deems just and proper.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Reid A. Jones

Frank H. Spruiell, Jr. (#1611)
Reid A. Jones, La. Bar No. 34611
WIENER, WEISS & MADISON
A Professional Corporation
333 Texas Street, Suite 2350 (71101)
P. O. Box 21990
Shreveport, Louisiana 71120-1990
(318) 226-9100, telephone
(318) 424-5128, facsimile
Email: fspruiell@wwmlaw.com
Email: rjones@wwmlaw.com

Counsel for Morris & Dickson Co., LLC

- 16 -
 Case 5:18-cv-00605-EEF-MLH Document 1-1 Filed 05/03/18 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 17
JS 44 (Rev. 06/17) CIVIL COVER SHEET
The JS 44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replace nor supplement the filing and service of pleadings or other papers as required by law, except as
provided by local rules of court. This form, approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, is required for the use of the Clerk of Court for the
purpose of initiating the civil docket sheet. (SEE INSTRUCTIONS ON NEXT PAGE OF THIS FORM.)

I. (a) PLAINTIFFS DEFENDANTS

Jefferson B. Sessions, III, as Attorney General of U.S.
Morris & Dickson, LLC U.S. Department of Justice
DEA and Robert W. Patterson as Acting Administrator of the DEA
(b) County of Residence of First Listed Plaintiff Caddo Parish County of Residence of First Listed Defendant
(EXCEPT IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES) (IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES ONLY)
NOTE: IN LAND CONDEMNATION CASES, USE THE LOCATION OF
THE TRACT OF LAND INVOLVED.

(c) Attorneys (Firm Name, Address, and Telephone Number) Attorneys (If Known)
Reid A. Jones #34611
Wiener, Weiss & Madison
P.O. Box 21990, Shreveport, LA 71120-1990 (319) 213-9209

II. BASIS OF JURISDICTION (Place an “X” in One Box Only) III. CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES (Place an “X” in One Box for Plaintiff
(For Diversity Cases Only) and One Box for Defendant)
’ 1 U.S. Government ’ 3 Federal Question PTF DEF PTF DEF
Plaintiff (U.S. Government Not a Party) Citizen of This State ’ 1 ’ 1 Incorporated or Principal Place ’ 4 ’ 4
of Business In This State

’ 2 U.S. Government ’ 4 Diversity Citizen of Another State ’ 2 ’ 2 Incorporated and Principal Place ’ 5 ’ 5
Defendant (Indicate Citizenship of Parties in Item III) of Business In Another State

Citizen or Subject of a ’ 3 ’ 3 Foreign Nation ’ 6 ’ 6

Foreign Country
IV. NATURE OF SUIT (Place an “X” in One Box Only) Click here for: Nature of Suit Code Descriptions.
CONTRACT TORTS FORFEITURE/PENALTY BANKRUPTCY OTHER STATUTES
’ 110 Insurance PERSONAL INJURY PERSONAL INJURY ’ 625 Drug Related Seizure ’ 422 Appeal 28 USC 158 ’ 375 False Claims Act
’ 120 Marine ’ 310 Airplane ’ 365 Personal Injury - of Property 21 USC 881 ’ 423 Withdrawal ’ 376 Qui Tam (31 USC
’ 130 Miller Act ’ 315 Airplane Product Product Liability ’ 690 Other 28 USC 157 3729(a))
’ 140 Negotiable Instrument Liability ’ 367 Health Care/ ’ 400 State Reapportionment
’ 150 Recovery of Overpayment ’ 320 Assault, Libel & Pharmaceutical PROPERTY RIGHTS ’ 410 Antitrust
& Enforcement of Judgment Slander Personal Injury ’ 820 Copyrights ’ 430 Banks and Banking
’ 151 Medicare Act ’ 330 Federal Employers’ Product Liability ’ 830 Patent ’ 450 Commerce
’ 152 Recovery of Defaulted Liability ’ 368 Asbestos Personal ’ 835 Patent - Abbreviated ’ 460 Deportation
Student Loans ’ 340 Marine Injury Product New Drug Application ’ 470 Racketeer Influenced and
(Excludes Veterans) ’ 345 Marine Product Liability ’ 840 Trademark Corrupt Organizations
’ 153 Recovery of Overpayment Liability PERSONAL PROPERTY LABOR SOCIAL SECURITY ’ 480 Consumer Credit
of Veteran’s Benefits ’ 350 Motor Vehicle ’ 370 Other Fraud ’ 710 Fair Labor Standards ’ 861 HIA (1395ff) ’ 490 Cable/Sat TV
’ 160 Stockholders’ Suits ’ 355 Motor Vehicle ’ 371 Truth in Lending Act ’ 862 Black Lung (923) ’ 850 Securities/Commodities/
’ 190 Other Contract Product Liability ’ 380 Other Personal ’ 720 Labor/Management ’ 863 DIWC/DIWW (405(g)) Exchange
’ 195 Contract Product Liability ’ 360 Other Personal Property Damage Relations ’ 864 SSID Title XVI ’ 890 Other Statutory Actions
’ 196 Franchise Injury ’ 385 Property Damage ’ 740 Railway Labor Act ’ 865 RSI (405(g)) ’ 891 Agricultural Acts
’ 362 Personal Injury - Product Liability ’ 751 Family and Medical ’ 893 Environmental Matters
Medical Malpractice Leave Act ’ 895 Freedom of Information
REAL PROPERTY CIVIL RIGHTS PRISONER PETITIONS ’ 790 Other Labor Litigation FEDERAL TAX SUITS Act
’ 210 Land Condemnation ’ 440 Other Civil Rights Habeas Corpus: ’ 791 Employee Retirement ’ 870 Taxes (U.S. Plaintiff ’ 896 Arbitration
’ 220 Foreclosure ’ 441 Voting ’ 463 Alien Detainee Income Security Act or Defendant) ’ 899 Administrative Procedure
’ 230 Rent Lease & Ejectment ’ 442 Employment ’ 510 Motions to Vacate ’ 871 IRS—Third Party Act/Review or Appeal of
’ 240 Torts to Land ’ 443 Housing/ Sentence 26 USC 7609 Agency Decision
’ 245 Tort Product Liability Accommodations ’ 530 General ’ 950 Constitutionality of
’ 290 All Other Real Property ’ 445 Amer. w/Disabilities - ’ 535 Death Penalty IMMIGRATION State Statutes
Employment Other: ’ 462 Naturalization Application
’ 446 Amer. w/Disabilities - ’ 540 Mandamus & Other ’ 465 Other Immigration
Other ’ 550 Civil Rights Actions
’ 448 Education ’ 555 Prison Condition
’ 560 Civil Detainee -
Conditions of
Confinement
V. ORIGIN (Place an “X” in One Box Only)
’ 1 Original ’ 2 Removed from ’ 3 Remanded from ’ 4 Reinstated or ’ 5 Transferred from ’ 6 Multidistrict ’ 8 Multidistrict
Proceeding State Court Appellate Court Reopened Another District Litigation - Litigation -
(specify) Transfer Direct File
Cite the U.S. Civil Statute under which you are filing (Do not cite jurisdictional statutes unless diversity):
Due process clause; 5 U.S.C. 706
VI. CAUSE OF ACTION Brief description of cause:
Action to enjoin enforcement of DEA license suspension
VII. REQUESTED IN ’ CHECK IF THIS IS A CLASS ACTION DEMAND $ CHECK YES only if demanded in complaint:
COMPLAINT: UNDER RULE 23, F.R.Cv.P. JURY DEMAND: ’ Yes ’ No
VIII. RELATED CASE(S)
(See instructions):
IF ANY JUDGE DOCKET NUMBER
DATE SIGNATURE OF ATTORNEY OF RECORD
05/03/2018 s/Reid A. Jones #34611
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY

RECEIPT # AMOUNT APPLYING IFP JUDGE MAG. JUDGE

Print Save As... Reset

 Case 5:18-cv-00605-EEF-MLH Document 1-1 Filed 05/03/18 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 18
JS 44 Reverse (Rev. 06/17)

INSTRUCTIONS FOR ATTORNEYS COMPLETING CIVIL COVER SHEET FORM JS 44

Authority For Civil Cover Sheet

The JS 44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replaces nor supplements the filings and service of pleading or other papers as
required by law, except as provided by local rules of court. This form, approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, is
required for the use of the Clerk of Court for the purpose of initiating the civil docket sheet. Consequently, a civil cover sheet is submitted to the Clerk of
Court for each civil complaint filed. The attorney filing a case should complete the form as follows:

I.(a) Plaintiffs-Defendants. Enter names (last, first, middle initial) of plaintiff and defendant. If the plaintiff or defendant is a government agency, use
only the full name or standard abbreviations. If the plaintiff or defendant is an official within a government agency, identify first the agency and
then the official, giving both name and title.
(b) County of Residence. For each civil case filed, except U.S. plaintiff cases, enter the name of the county where the first listed plaintiff resides at the
time of filing. In U.S. plaintiff cases, enter the name of the county in which the first listed defendant resides at the time of filing. (NOTE: In land
condemnation cases, the county of residence of the "defendant" is the location of the tract of land involved.)
(c) Attorneys. Enter the firm name, address, telephone number, and attorney of record. If there are several attorneys, list them on an attachment, noting
in this section "(see attachment)".

II. Jurisdiction. The basis of jurisdiction is set forth under Rule 8(a), F.R.Cv.P., which requires that jurisdictions be shown in pleadings. Place an "X"
in one of the boxes. If there is more than one basis of jurisdiction, precedence is given in the order shown below.
United States plaintiff. (1) Jurisdiction based on 28 U.S.C. 1345 and 1348. Suits by agencies and officers of the United States are included here.
United States defendant. (2) When the plaintiff is suing the United States, its officers or agencies, place an "X" in this box.
Federal question. (3) This refers to suits under 28 U.S.C. 1331, where jurisdiction arises under the Constitution of the United States, an amendment
to the Constitution, an act of Congress or a treaty of the United States. In cases where the U.S. is a party, the U.S. plaintiff or defendant code takes
precedence, and box 1 or 2 should be marked.
Diversity of citizenship. (4) This refers to suits under 28 U.S.C. 1332, where parties are citizens of different states. When Box 4 is checked, the
citizenship of the different parties must be checked. (See Section III below; NOTE: federal question actions take precedence over diversity
cases.)

III. Residence (citizenship) of Principal Parties. This section of the JS 44 is to be completed if diversity of citizenship was indicated above. Mark this
section for each principal party.

IV. Nature of Suit. Place an "X" in the appropriate box. If there are multiple nature of suit codes associated with the case, pick the nature of suit code
that is most applicable. Click here for: Nature of Suit Code Descriptions.

V. Origin. Place an "X" in one of the seven boxes.

Original Proceedings. (1) Cases which originate in the United States district courts.
Removed from State Court. (2) Proceedings initiated in state courts may be removed to the district courts under Title 28 U.S.C., Section 1441.
When the petition for removal is granted, check this box.
Remanded from Appellate Court. (3) Check this box for cases remanded to the district court for further action. Use the date of remand as the filing
date.
Reinstated or Reopened. (4) Check this box for cases reinstated or reopened in the district court. Use the reopening date as the filing date.
Transferred from Another District. (5) For cases transferred under Title 28 U.S.C. Section 1404(a). Do not use this for within district transfers or
multidistrict litigation transfers.
Multidistrict Litigation – Transfer. (6) Check this box when a multidistrict case is transferred into the district under authority of Title 28 U.S.C.
Section 1407.
Multidistrict Litigation – Direct File. (8) Check this box when a multidistrict case is filed in the same district as the Master MDL docket.
PLEASE NOTE THAT THERE IS NOT AN ORIGIN CODE 7. Origin Code 7 was used for historical records and is no longer relevant due to
changes in statue.

VI. Cause of Action. Report the civil statute directly related to the cause of action and give a brief description of the cause. Do not cite jurisdictional
statutes unless diversity. Example: U.S. Civil Statute: 47 USC 553 Brief Description: Unauthorized reception of cable service

VII. Requested in Complaint. Class Action. Place an "X" in this box if you are filing a class action under Rule 23, F.R.Cv.P.
Demand. In this space enter the actual dollar amount being demanded or indicate other demand, such as a preliminary injunction.
Jury Demand. Check the appropriate box to indicate whether or not a jury is being demanded.

VIII. Related Cases. This section of the JS 44 is used to reference related pending cases, if any. If there are related pending cases, insert the docket
numbers and the corresponding judge names for such cases.

Date and Attorney Signature. Date and sign the civil cover sheet.