Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Davis v. Holder

United States District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania

January 16, 2014

DR. GLENN B. DAVIS, Plaintiff,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General of the United States, MICHELE M. LEONHART, Administrator of the Drug Enforcement Agency, JOHN DOE, Unknown Agent or Agents of the Drug Enforcement Administration, RITE AID CORPORATION, VALUE DRUG CORPORATION, Defendants

Page 720

For DR. GLENN B. DAVIS, Plaintiff: David M. Axinn, LEAD ATTORNEY, Duncansville, PA.

For ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General of the United States, MICHELE M. LEONHART, Admininstrator of the Drug Enforcement Agency, JOHN DOE, Unknown Agent or Agents of the Drug Enforcement Administration, Defendants: Michael A. Comber, LEAD ATTORNEY, United States Attorney's Office (PGH), Pittsburgh, PA.

For RITE AID CORPORATION, Defendant: Thomas G. Collins, LEAD ATTORNEY, Buchanan Ingersoll Rooney, Harrisburg, PA; Jacob M. Theis, Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney PC, Harrisburg, PA.

For VALUE DRUG CORPORATION, Defendant: Joseph A. Grappone, Grappone Law Offices, Altoona, PA.

OPINION

Page 721

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER OF COURT

KIM R. GIBSON, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

I. SYNOPSIS

Pending before the Court is Defendant Rite Aid Corporation's motion to dismiss (ECF No. 14) Plaintiff Dr. Glenn B. Davis's complaint (ECF No. 1) for failing to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Davis opposes the motion. (ECF No. 22). For the reasons explained below, the Court will GRANT Rite Aid's motion to dismiss.

II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE

Jurisdiction is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Venue is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2) because a substantial portion of the events giving rise to this claim occurred in the Western District of Pennsylvania.

III. BACKGROUND

This case arises from Davis's allegations that Defendants interfered with his ability to practice medicine, specifically with his ability to lawfully prescribe medication in the course of his practice. (ECF No. 1, Compl. ¶ 1). Davis makes the following allegations in his complaint, which the Court accepts as true for the limited purpose of deciding the pending motion.

Davis is a physician, licensed to practice medicine in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. (ECF No. 1, Compl. ¶ 7). Davis is registered with the Drug Enforcement Administration (" DEA" ) and is " authorized to prescribe or dispense controlled substances for medical purposes." ( Id. ¶ 8). As part of his practice, Davis prescribes to his patients medications that are medically necessary and appropriate. ( Id. ¶ 12). Davis's patients depend on the treatment they receive in order to maintain their quality of life. ( Id. ¶ 13).

In 2012, the DEA contacted pharmacies and drug distributors used by Davis's patients and ordered them not to fill prescriptions

Page 722

written by Davis, threatening the pharmacies and drug distributors with the loss of their licenses if they did not comply with the DEA's request. ( Id. ¶ 14). On February 18, 2013, Rite Aid sent a letter to Davis at the request of a DEA agent stating that Rite Aid would no longer fill prescriptions from Davis's office for certain controlled substances. ( Id. ¶ 15). Other pharmacies took similar action. ( Id. ¶ ¶ 16-17).

Davis was not provided with notice or an opportunity for an administrative hearing as required by the Controlled Substances Act in order to suspend a physician's controlled substances registration. ( Id. ¶ 18-19). As a result of these actions, Davis lost his ability to effectively practice medicine. ( Id. ¶ 20).

Davis initiated this action by filing a complaint (ECF No. 1) on April 22, 2013. On June 21, 2013, Rite Aid filed a motion to dismiss (ECF No. 14) Davis's complaint along with a brief in support (ECF No. 15). Davis filed a brief in opposition (ECF No. 22) on July 31, 2013. With leave from the Court ( see ECF No. 24), Rite Aid filed a reply brief (ECF No. 23-1) to Davis's brief in ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.