UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

UNITED STATES COAST GUARI)

UNITED STATES COAST GUARD.

Complainant.

vs

MICHAEL JAMES DAIGLE.

Respondent

Docket Number 2023-0057

Enforcement Activity No. 7630656

DEFAULT ORDER

Issued By: Honoratrle Georse J. Jordan. Administrative Law Judse

Issued: Anril 24.2023

Appearances:

Eric Bauer

Suspension & Revocation National Center for Expertise

For the Coast Guard

Michael James Daigle,pra se

For Respondent
This matter comes before me on the United States Coast Cuard's (Coast Guard) Motion

for Default Order. As of the date of this order. Michael James Daigle (Respondent) has not

responded to the Complaint or the Motion for Default. Upon review of the record and pertinent

authority, the Coast Guard's Motion for Default is GRANTED.

Background

On February 15,2023, the Coast Guard filed a Complaint against Respondent alleging he

is a security risk as described by 46 U.S.C. S 7703(5). The j urisdictional allegations in the

Complaint indicate Respondent is the holder of Merchant Mariner Credentials (MMC)

000558880. The Return ofService for the Complaint filed by the Coast Guard indicates the

Complaint was delivered to Respondent's residence by Express Courier Service and signed for

by a person suitable age and discretion at the residence on February 22,2023.

On March 20,2023, rhe Coast Guard filed a Motion for Default Order. explaining

Respondent failed to file an Answer and the response time had passed. See 33 C.F.R. S 20.308.

The Retum of Service for Motion for Default Order indicates the Motion was delivered to

Respondent's residence by Express Courier Service and signed for by a person suitable age and

discretion at the residence on March 22,2023. The Chief Administrative Law Judge assigned

the matterto the undersigned Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) on April 17,2023.

Discussion

The regulations require a respondent to "file a written answer to the complaint 20 days or

less after service of the complaint." 33 C.F.R. $ 20.308(a). An ALJ may find a respondent in

default "upon failure to file a timely answer to the complaint or, after motion, upon failure to

appear at a conference or hearing without good cause shown." 33 C.F.R. $ 20.310(a). Default

constitutes an admission ofall facts alleged in a complaint and a waiver ofa respondent's right

to a hearing on those f'acts. 33 C.F.R. $ 20.3 l0(c). See

(2008)

26 REEVF]S
The Complaint filed by the Coast Guard and properly served on Respondent contained

instructions that clearly stated, "YOU MUST RESPOND TO THIS COMPLAINT WITHIN 20

DAYS" and provided the applicable regulatory provision, 33 C.F.R. $ 20.308. The instructions

also informed Respondent he could request an extension of time "within 20 days" ofreceipt.

Respondent failed to respond to the Complaint or request an extension of time. Similarly,

Respondent failed to respond to the properly served Motion for Default Order.

Here. the record shows Respondent did not file an Answer and has made no attempt to

provide good cause for not doing so. Furthermore, nothing in the record indicates Respondent

asked for an extension of time.

Title 33 C.F.R. $ 20.3 l0 provides "the respondent alleged to be in default shall file a

reply to the motion 20 dals or less after service ofthe motion." To date, Respondent has not

filed a reply.

Accordingly, I find Respondent is in DEFAULT pursuant to 33 C.F.R. g 20.310(a).

Default constitutes an admission ofall facts alleged in the Complaint and a waiver ofthe right to

a hearing. 33 C.F.R. S 20.310(c). See Appeal Decision 2682 (REEVES) (2008).

As to the charge of Security Risk That Poses a Threat to the Safety or Security of a

Vessel or Structure Located Within or Adjacent to the Marine Environment. the Complaint

alleges that on November 28. 2022, the Transportation Security Administration {TSA)

determined that Respondent does not meet the security threat assessment standards described in

49 CFR $ 1572.5, poses an imminent security threat in accordance with 49 CFR $ 1572.21(d)(3),

and revoked Respondent's TWIC, in accordance with 49 CFR $ 1572.5(b). Respondent's

ineligibility to hold a TWIC is proof Respondent is not eligible for an MMC, in accordance with

46 CFR $$ l0.l0l and 10.235(h). The deemed-admitted allegations are sufficient to establish

that Respondent is a security risk as described by 46 U.S.C. $ 7703(5), and therefore, the
Complaint is PROVED. Based on this finding. I also llnd the facts alleged in the Complaint

sufficient to *,arrant the sanction of REVOCATION. See 46 C.F.R. g 5.569.

WHEREFORX.

ORDER

Upon consideration ofthe record. I find Respondent in DEFAULT.

tT IS HEREBY ORDERED, in accordance with 33 C.F.R. $ 20.310, I flnd the

allegations set forth in the Cornplaint PROVED.

IT lS FURTHER ORDERED, all oi Respondent's Coast Guard issued credentials,

including Respondent's Merchant Mariner Credential (MMC). are REVOKED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, Respondent shall immediately deliver all Coast Guard

issued credentials. licenses, certificates. or documents. including the MMC. by mail. courier

service, or in person to: Eric Bauer. Investigation Officer. Suspension & Revocation National

Cenler for Expertise. 100 Forbes Drive Martinsburg. WV 25404. In accordance rl,ith I 8 U.S.C.

$ 2 I 97. if Respondent knowingly continues to use the Coast Guard issued MMC,

Respondent may be subject to criminal prosecution.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED. pursuant to 33 C.F.R. $ 20.3 l0(e). for qood cause

shown. an ALJ may set ide a findins ofdefault. Amotion to set aside a finding ofdefault may

be filed with the ALJ Docketing Center in Baltimore. The motion may be sent to the U.S. Coast

Guard Administrative Law Judge Docketing Center; Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk; Room

412: 40 S. Gay Street; Baltimore. MD 21202-4022.

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE, service of this Default Order on the parties serves as notice

ofappeal rights set forth in 33 C.F.R. $ 20.1001-20.100.1 (Attachment A).
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Done and dated April 24- 2023.

Seattle. Washington.

J. Jordan

strative Law Judge

/