UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

UNITED STATES COAST GUARD 

_________________________________ 

UNITED STATES COAST GUARD 

Complainant

vs. 

JAMES NEIL RYERSE 

Respondent

_________________________________ 

Docket Number 2009-0429 

Enforcement Activity No. 3601363

ORDER GRANTING COAST GUARD’S MOTION FOR 

SUMMARY DECISION – IN PART

Issued: December 15, 2009

By Administrative Law Judge: Honorable Walter J. Brudzinski

The Coast Guard requests Summary Decision on the grounds that there are no genuine 

issues of material fact. For the reasons set forth below, Summary Decision is Partially Granted. 

However, Respondent still has the opportunity at the hearing to present evidence showing that 

his merchant mariner’s document should not be revoked. 

The Complaint alleges Respondent was convicted on January 23, 2009 of “an offense that 

would preclude the issuance or renewal of a license, certificate or registry, or merchant mariner’s 

document” under 46 U.S.C. § 7703(2); to wit: Criminal Sexual Conduct – 3rd Degree – Person 

between the ages of 13 – 15, in violation of MICH. COMP. LAWS § 750.520d(1)(a) (2009). The 

Coast Guard proposes Revocation. 

In his Answer, Respondent admits to all jurisdiction and factual allegations but requests 

to be heard on the proposed order. In his response to the Coast Guard’s Motion for Summary 
Decision, he states that he believes he can prove at hearing that he is “in no way, shape, or form 

a threat to my shipmates and or vessel. I will prove with letters of character to the ALJ that there 

is not a safety at sea issue.” 

Law

 “It is well settled that a court should grant a motion for summary judgment only when 

evidence, viewed in light most favorable to nonmoving party, presents no genuine issue of 

material fact.” Commander Oil Corp. v. Advance Food Service Equipment, 991 F.2d 49, 51 (2nd

Cir 1993) quoting United States v. Diebold, Inc., 369 U.S. 654, 655 (1962). “There is no material 

fact issue when reasonable minds cannot differ as to the import of the evidence before the court. 

Id. quoting Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 250-51 (1986). For summary 

judgment purposes, “[n]o genuine issue exists unless there is sufficient evidence favoring 

nonmoving party for jury to return verdict for that party, and if evidence is merely colorable, or 

is not significantly probative, summary judgment may be granted. Sala v. Gates Const. Corp., 

868 F. Supp. 474, 476 (E.D.N.Y.1994). 

“A factual dispute is material if it ‘affects the outcome of the litigation,’ and genuine if 

manifested by ‘substantial evidence going beyond the allegations of the complaint.’” Pignons 

S.A. de Mecanique de Precision v. Polaroid Corp., (1st Cir. 1981), 657 F.2d 482, 486, quoting

Hahn v. Sargent, 523 F.2d 461, 464 (1st Cir. 1975), cert. denied, 425 U.S. 904 (1976). “In 

passing on a summary judgment motion, the court must view the record and draw inferences 

most favorably to the opposing party.” Hahn, 523 F.2d at 464. 

Title 46 U.S.C. § 7703 (2) provides that “[a] license, certificate of registry, or merchant 

mariner’s document issued by the Secretary may be suspended or revoked if the holder - (2) is 

convicted of an offense that would prevent the issuance or renewal of a license, certificate or 

registry, or merchant mariner’s document.” 

2 
Applying the Law to the Facts

It is undisputed that Respondent is a holder of a merchant mariner’s document and it is 

undisputed that Respondent was convicted of Criminal Sexual Conduct – 3rd Degree – Person 

between the ages of 13 – 15. The Coast Guard offers a letter from the National Maritime Center 

dated May 13, 2009 denying Respondent’s application for renewal of his merchant mariner’s 

document citing “Attempted Felony Criminal Sexual Conduct” and that under title 46 C.F.R. 

Table 10.211(g), it has imposed a five year assessment period which started on the date of 

Respondent’s conviction and will end on January 23, 2014. Title 46 C.F.R. Table 10.211(g), is a 

list of general categories of criminal offenses with corresponding minimum and maximum 

assessment periods that the Coast Guard uses in evaluating the suitability of applicants for the 

issuance or renewal of merchant mariner credentials. The offense in question fits in the category 

of “Sexual Assault (rape, child molestation)” and carries minimum and maximum assessment 

periods of 5 and 10 years respectively. Considering the May 13, 2009 letter, the Coast Guard has 

already decided that based on the above conviction, it will not renew Respondent’s document for 

at least 5 years. 

Those administrative actions are not binding on the Administrative Law Judge in 

suspension and revocation proceedings. There is no regulation in title 46 C.F.R. directing the 

Administrative Law Judge to revoke a merchant mariner’s credential if an allegation of 

conviction of an offense that would prevent the issuance or renewal of a merchant mariner’s 

credential is found proved. Further, Respondent states, “I will prove with letters of character to 

the ALJ that there is not a safety at sea issue. These letters from officers and masters clearly state 

their beliefs that I should be able to keep my documents and upgrade when applicable to 

continue my chosen profession.” 

3 
Conclusion

Respondent will present evidence on his fitness to hold a document that will affect the 

sanction. Since this evidence may affect the outcome of these proceedings, they are material and 

since they could reasonably persuade a trier of fact to impose a sanction less that Revocation, 

they are genuine. Viewing the record and drawing inferences most favorably to the opposing 

party, I find that there are genuine issues of material fact remaining. 

Therefore, the Coast Guard’s motion for summary decision is PARTIALLY 

GRANTED to the extent that the following elements are found proved: 1) At all times relevant 

to these proceedings, Respondent was a holder of a merchant mariner’s document; 2) 

Respondent was convicted of Criminal Sexual Conduct – 3rd Degree – Person between the ages 

of 13 – 15, in violation of MICH. COMP. LAWS § 750.520d(1)(a) (2009); and 3) under the 

regualtions at 46 C.F.R. Table 211(g), said conviction is an offense that would prevent the 

issuance of renewal of his merchant mariner’s document. 

SO ORDERED. 

__________________________________________________ 

Walter J. Brudzinski 

Administrative Law Judge 

United States Coast Guard 

Date: December 15, 2009

4