09/10/2010 16:52 FAX 2024935142 FAA ^ DMS @002/008 

09/07/2010 13:55 FAX 3107256916 AWP-7 1^002/008 

': ::R^RTMENT OF 

""^'•NSPORT/VnON 

. "-f;:^ i GPER/VTIONS 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA •;> E'i B A ^: 08 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

*-rr**rr^»^»»imiithkkmkf.xt.lkkkkii-lixt.miLk1f»**1c 

In the Matter of • FAA Docket No.: CP10WP0009 

SAMUEL JOSEPH LATHAM 

Respondent. * FAA Region: Western-Par:iflc 

Judge: Honorable Richard 0. GoodMrJn 

DMS No. FAA-2010-0624 

* 

+ 

****-Mnrnm***±**tittii*^**-Hrt**^**ini*****Mtr******* 

COMPLAINANT'S OrPOSITION TO RESPONDENT'S "MOTION TO I^ISNASS 

ON THE GROUNfDS OF MENTAL DEFECT" 

To: The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin and to Respondent acting in pro perht:^m: 

COMES NOW, the Regional Counsel of the Western-Pacific Region of the 

Federal Aviation Adirinisaation (FAA), by and through her counsel, and files this 

Opposition to Respondent's "Motion to Dismiss on the Gxotmds of Mental De "ret" that 

he filed on August 20, 2010. This opposition is based on the fact that Resf indent's 

stated reason for filing his motion is without legal precedence. 

This opposition is timely filed under the provisions of 14 C.F.R. § 13.218(d) 

which states that a party may file an answer to a motion not later than 10 diiys after 

service of a written motion fi:om the opposing party. 14 C.F.R. § I3.218(c, Here, 

Respondent filed his motion on August 20, 2010, which was received by Complainant on 

August 30, 2010. (See true copy of (^velope with certified mail receipt, along -xrith 

uacJdng infonnation downloaded fix>m usps-com, attached hereto as E>diibi "A." ) 
09/10/2010 16:52 FAX 2024935142 FAA ^ DMS 0003/008 

09/07/2010 13:55 FAI 3107256816 AWP-7 81003/008 

Under the Rules of Practice. Complajinant's opposition is due not later than Sef lember 7, 

2010.^ (The opposition was due on September 5, 2010 (which includes five d:3ys added 

by 14 C-F.R. § 211(e)). Since September 5, 2010 fell on a Saturday however, it became 

due on the next day which was not a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday, September 6, 

2010, a Monday, was Labor Day. 

FACTS 

The facts in this case are neither novel or unique. Investigation indicat;;s that on 

December 5, 2009, Respondent, while a passenger aboard a Horizon Airlin:;s'' flight 

between Medford, Oregon and Los Angeles, California, ran out of the lavatory i:iked and 

pushed one crewmember once and wliile still naked, pushed another crewmeml)er r^'ice. 

After the aircraft landed and while still naked. Respondent bit a passenger ^vho was 

attempting to stop Respondent from going into the flight deck. 

Despite the fact that Respondent has not filed an answer to the coin plaint, it 

appears that he is not disputing the facts, but is claiming mental defect to jjstify his 

actions.^ As a result of Respondent's beha-vior on board Horizon Airlines on December 

5, 2009, the FAA proposed a civil penalty in the amount of $27,500.00 for vjclating 14 

C.F.R. § 121.580 and Title 49 U.S.C. § 46313.^ 

ARGUMENT 

Respondent's position is essentially, that since he was found to be incnmpitent 

due to psychosis, and also because no criminal charges were filed againsi: liim in 

connection with this incident, the matter should be dismissed in its entire:;/. (See 

^ Foi service by mail, five days shall be added to The prescnTjed period. 14 C.F.R. § ti.211(e). l^loreover, 

where, as here, if the last day of the time peric>d in which to file a response is a legal holida',. the time 

period runs until The end of the next day tibat is not a Saturday, Sunday, or legal hohday. ] i C.F.R. § 

13.218rd} 14 C.F.R. § 13.212(e). 

^ Respondent's failure lo file an answer is the subject of Complainant's Motion lo Deem .WlegJitions 

Admitted and to Issue Order Assessing Civil Penalty which was filed on August 27, 2010. 

^ M C-F.R. § 121.580 states that, "no person irM,y assault, threaten, intimidate, or inCcrf ^rc with a 

crewrnejubcr ia the performance of the crerwuicmbcr's duties aboard an aircraft being operated imder this 

pan." 49 C.F.R-§ 46318 states that '"anyonfc who physically assaults or threatens to physical!, assault a 

member of tb« flight crew or cabin crew of o civil aircraft or any other individual on the aircraft is hable to 

the United States Government for a civil penalty." 
09/10/201 0 ie:5 2 FAX 202493514 2 FAA ^ DMS ^004/00 8 

08/07/2010 13:55 FAX 3107256816 AWP-7 1^004/008 

Respondent's letter of August 20. 2010. page 1.) However, Respondent's i position is 

without legal precedent. In regaj'ds to his mental defect, in a similar case, the 

Administrative Law Judge ruled that "... the mental state of the Respondent H the time 

he boarded the flight in question is simply irrelevant. He was not privileged lo impose 

the consequences of his mental condition on flight attendants or fellow passeii.;»eri,." In 

the Matter of Joaquin Rodriguez, 2006 WL 3623806, Docket No. CP(i5SO0049 

(September 8, 2006). In a more recent case, the Administrative Law Judge correctly 

reasoned that the FAA cannot excuse passenger behavior in violation of tl: c; Federal 

Aviaiton Regulations on grounds that it was the result of the passenger's mem fil illness. 

In the Matter of Eric Salcido, 2008 WL 3485806, Docket No. CP08SO000:-; (August 

2008). In Salcido, the Administrative Law Judge also found that the FAA is catitled to 

enforce its regulations even against those passengcis who suffer from ncnirotic or 

psychotic conditions. Id. While it is certainly regrettable that Respondent suff ::red from 

a mental psychosis, at least at ihe time of thi."; incident, such mental impairment ;.axinot be 

the cause for dismissing this case. To grant his motion would not only set a :recedent 

which would severely jeopardize the safety of the flying pubhc, it would severely limit 

the FAA's authority to institute admimstrati\e proceedings to recover civil pena:iies from 

alleged violators of the Federal Aviation Regulations. 

Moreover, Respondent's reliance on the District Attorney's failure to file criminal 

charges against him to support that he had a mental defect, is misplaced. Tl",; instant 

case is initiated by the FAA under its independent statutory authority lo recrver civil 

penalties for violations of its regulations. It is therefore wholly irrelevant avid of no 

moment whether a local district attorney chooses to exercise his or her proMScutorial 

discretion in filing ciiminal charges against Respondent. The FAA has properly 

exercised its prosecutorial discretion to bring this case to enforce the Federal Aviation 

Regulations. 
09/10/201 0 1G:52 FAX 2024935142 FAA •> DMS 0005/00 8 

U»/UY/2im; la ; 55 hAl 3107256516 AWP-7 IglOOS/OOS 

In view of the above. Complainant moves that Respondent's motion be c <mied in 

its entirety. 

Respectfully submitted, 

Naomi Tsuda 

Regional Counsel 

Dated: September 7, 2010 
09/10/2010 16:52 FAX 2024935142 FAA ^ DMS @l00G/008 

09/07/2010 13:55 FAX 3107256816 AWP-7 ^006/008 

EXHIBIT "A" 
09/10/2010 16:52 FAX 2024935142 

09/07/2010 13:55 FAX 3107256818 

USPS - Track & Confirm 

FAA 

AWP-7 

•* DMS @l007/008 

ia007/008 

Page 1 of 1 

Track & Confirm 

Home ||j«|fi I 

Sianin 

£aa? 

Search ItesuHs 

LabeiyReceipi Number 7009 2820 0002 0B36 B263 

Class; First^lasB Mall* 

Service(s): Certified Mall"" 

R«tum Receipt , 

Status: Delivered ' 

Your item was delivered ef 8:18 pm or^ August 30, 2010 in LOS 

ANGELES, CA 90009, 

Detailed Results: 

> Delivered, Aususst ao, 2010,9:18 pm, LOS ANGELES, CA dOOOd 

• Notice Left, August 7S, 2010, 6:03 am, LOS ANGELES, CA 90009 

• Am'yal at VnH, August 29. 2010, 5:37 am, LOS ANQELES, CA 90009 

• Acceptance, August 20, 2010,4:26 pm, WILDOMAR. CA 9269S 

MutiBcathm Onians 

i " ..-• ' . r , .,.„.. , ,.. ,,. . ....M,^.,.. 

Track & Confirm by email 

Get current event InfonmBtiori or updates for your item sant to you or others by email. C^>' ) 

Traofc & Confinn 

Enter Labet/Recaipt M jmU;r. 

cs^ 

•"•-• • - • s 

Samuel Lstbam, Respandenr 

33690 Almond Street 

WiWomar, CA 9259S 

0^ 

~ 0 i'J? 

7Q0«, easo DnD2Dt3b6et 3 

. fCLOHTcO-nroLiilE 

'CERTlFIBDmiL 

7D0^ H62D QDD3 Qt^t 52^3 

ion 900 OS 

Lierre Green, Complainant's Counsel 

Office of the Regional, AWP-7.6 

Federal Aviation Adminbtration 

Western-Pacific Region 

P.O. Box 92007 

Los Angeles, C A 90009-2007 

HILDOr 

I $1 

00< 

3000^5200 — iBfsao ii.),ii}...il.„1l,„l.}„..liUh.^\,„i..,in..,l,..U],.i 

http://t]-kcnfrm I .smi.usns-com/PTSIntemetWeb/InterLabellnouirv.do 9/7/7010 
09/10/2010 16:52 FAX 2024935142 FAA * DMS 1008/00 8 

-„.^c, » „*» 7 121008/008 

09/07/2010 13:55 FA I 3107256816 AWP-7 "^ 

CERTIPICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that on this date I have faxed and placed in the United Sivites mail, 

postage prepaid, the executed original of the COMPLAINANT'S OPPOSIVION TO 

RESPONDENT'S "MOTION TO DISMISS ON THE GROUNDS OF I lENTAL 

DEFECT", addressed as follows: 

The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin 

Administrative Law Judge 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Trasnportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. 

East BcuJding Ground Floor, Room El 2-320 

Washington DC 20590 

Facsimile: (202)366-7536 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenuse, S.W. 

Washington DC 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building- Suite 2W 000 

Facsimile: (202) 493-5142 

I further certified that on this date I have placed in the United States mai-.., postage 

prepaid, certified mail, return receipt retpested, a copy of the above addressed to 

Samuel Joseph Latham. 

33690 Ahnond St. 

Wildomar, CA 92595 

Dated: SEP 07 2010 

JeffKambergi 

Legal Technician 

Office of the Regional Comisel 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Western-Pacific Region 

Hawthorne, California