UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

UNITED STATES COAST GUARD 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

UNITED STATES COAST GUARD 

DECISION OF THE 

VICE COMMANDANT 

v. 

ON APPEAL 

NO. 

MERCHANT MARINER DOCUMENT 1912 

Issued to: KWAME REY MORRIS 

APPEARANCES 

For the Government: 

LCDR Maureen D. Johnson, USCG 

Mr. John J. Hulslander 

Coast Guard Sector Buffalo 

For Respondent: 

Mrs. Ana Magdalena Morris, as Representative 

Administrative Law Judge: Michael J. Devine 

This appeal is taken in accordance with 46 U.S.C. Chapter 77, 46 C.F.R. Part 5 and 

33 C.F.R. Part 20. 

By a Decision and Order (hereinafter "D&O") dated March 7, 2013, an Administrative 

Law Judge (hereinafter "ALJ") of the United States Coast Guard dismissed the Complaint against 

the Merchant Mariner Document of Mr. Kwame Rey Morris (hereinafter "Respondent"). The 

Coast Guard Complaint charged use of or addiction to the use of dangerous drugs, specifically 

alleging that Respondent submitted to a random drug test, and that the specimen he provided tested 

positive for the presence of cocaine metabolites. 
MORRIS NO. 

Upon determining that the Coast Guard failed to provide substantial evidence that 

Respondent's positive drug test met all the elements of a prima facie case, the ALJ found the 

charge not proved and dismissed the complaint with prejudice. 

The Coast Guard appeals. 

FACTS 

On October 14, 2011, Respondent was the holder of a Merchant Mariner Document issued 

to him by the United States Coast Guard. [D&O at 5; Coast Guard Exhibit (hereinafter "CG Ex.") 

1; Transcript of the Proceedings (hereinafter "Tr.") at 173] 

At all times relevant to these proceedings, Respondent was employed by International Ship 

Management (hereinafter "ISM"). [D&O at 5; CG Ex. 2] On October 10, 2011, Medi+Physicals, 

Inc., the company used by ISM for urinalysis services, selected Respondent to participate in a 

random drug test, via a computer-generated random selection process. [D&O at 5; CG Ex. 2; Tr. at 

157-63] 

Respondent submitted to random drug testing on October 14, 2011, at COMBI-Tampa's 

collection facility, a facility providing sample collection services for maritime employees. [D&O 

at 5; CG Ex. 2; Tr. at 157-63] A certified urinalysis collector handled the collection of 

Respondent's urine sample, but did not review the IDs of the individuals being tested. [D&O at 6; 

Tr. at 53-70, 81; CG Ex. 3, 14] Quest Diagnostics, a federally-certified laboratory, tested 

Respondent's urine sample. [D&O at 6; CG Ex. 8; Tr. at 92, 94-95] Respondent's putative urine 

sample tested positive for the presence of cocaine metabolites. [D&O at 6] 

On November 4, 2011, a Medical Review Officer (hereinafter "MRO") discussed the 

results of Respondent's drug test with Respondent. [D&O at 7; Tr. at 132-34] Because the MRO 

determined that there was no valid medical explanation for Respondent's sample yielding a 

positive result, the MRO verified Respondent's drug test as positive. Id. 

2 
MORRIS NO. 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY 

On March 23, 2013, the Coast Guard filed a Complaint against Respondent's Merchant 

Mariner Document. On April 3 0, 2012, Respondent filed his Answer to the Complaint, wherein he 

admitted all jurisdictional allegations but denied several of the Complaint's factual allegations. 

On June 5, 2012, the Coast Guard filed a Motion to Withdraw the Complaint, asserting that 

because Respondent's Merchant Mariner Document had expired on May 23, 2012, the ALJ no 

longer had jurisdiction to entertain the matter. The ALJ denied the Coast Guard's Motion on June 

19, 2012. 

The hearing initially commenced on August 20, 2012, at Buffalo, New York. Because 

Respondent's attorney of record withdrew from the matter at that time, the ALJ continued the 

hearing until November to afford Respondent the opportunity to secure new counsel. The hearing 

recommenced on November 8, 2012, in Buffalo, New York, with Respondent's mother, Ana 

Magdalena Morris, participating as Respondent's designated representative. 

At the hearing, the Coast Guard offered the testimony of four witnesses and entered 

thirteen exhibits into the record. Respondent testified on his own behalf and entered one exhibit 

into the record. 

Following the hearing, both the Coast Guard and Respondent submitted post-hearing 

briefs. 

The ALJ issued his D&O on March 7, 2013, dismissing the complaint. The Coast Guard 

filed a Notice of Appeal on March 11, 2013 and its Appeal Brief on May 3, 2013, thus perfecting 

its appeal. Respondent filed a Reply on June 3, 2013. This appeal is properly before me. 

BASIS OF APPEAL 

The Coast Guard appeals from the ALJ's D&O, which found not proved a single charge of 

use of or addiction to the use of dangerous drugs, and ordered the dismissal of its Complaint 

3 
MORRIS NO. 

against Respondent's Merchant Mariner Document. The Coast Guard urges me to find that the 

ALJ erred in finding jurisdiction in this case, since Respondent's merchant mariner credential 

expired while the proceedings were ongoing. Thus, the Coast Guard raises the following issue: 

Whether suspension and revocation proceedings can be held against a 

mariner with an expired Merchant Mariner Document? 

OPINION 

The Coast Guard asserts, citing Appeal Decisions 2141 (WADDY) (1978) (the holding of a 

credential at the time of the hearing, and not at the time of the conviction of a drug offense, is 

necessary to establish jurisdiction) and 15 66 (WHITE) ( 1966) (no suspension and revocation 

proceedings can be held against a surrendered mariner credential), that the ALJ erred in finding 

jurisdiction existed after Respondent's mariner credential expired. I do not agree. The cited cases 

shed little or no light on this case. 

Jurisdiction is a critical element to the validity of these proceedings; when jurisdiction, or 

proof thereof, is lacking, dismissal is required. Appeal Decision 2656 (JORDAN) (2006) at 6. 

Although this case presents an issue of first impression in these proceedings, in other 

federal and administrative proceedings, the rule of continuing jurisdiction typically applies. Under 

the rule of continuing jurisdiction, it is commonly held that "a court that has acquired jurisdiction 

of a case cannot be deprived of jurisdiction by subsequent events in the course of its proceedings, 

even if those subsequent events would have prevented jurisdiction from attaching in the first 

place." 20 Am. Jur. 2d Courts §96. See, e.g., Freeport-McMoran, Inc., et al. v. KN Energy, Inc., 

498 U.S. 426, 428 (1991) ("We have consistently held that if jurisdiction exists at the time an 

action is commenced, such jurisdiction may not be divested by subsequent events."); Chapman v. 

Currie Motors, Inc., 65 F.3d 78, 81 (7th.Cir. 1995) ("Ordinarily, when a case is within federal 

jurisdiction when filed, it remains there even if subsequent events eliminate the original basis for 

federal jurisdiction."); Steensland v. Alabama Judicial Inquiry Commission, 87 So.3d 535, 542 

(Ala. 2012) ("Once the jurisdiction of a court or administrative agency attaches, the general rule is 

4 
MORRIS N0. 1 ·291 2 

that it will not be ousted by subsequent events.") (citing In re Peoples, 296 N.C. 109, 146, 250 

S.E.2d 890, 911 (1978)). 

I see no reason why the rule of continuing jurisdiction should not be applied in these 

proceedings. Since the record shows that Respondent was the holder of a valid merchant mariner 

credential when the proceeding was initiated, jurisdiction properly attached and, despite the 

subsequent expiration of that credential, jurisdiction nonetheless continued until the proceeding's 

conclusion. 

Accordingly, the Coast Guard's appeal is rejected. 

CONCLUSION 

The ALJ's findings and decision were lawful, based on correct interpretation of the law, 

and supported by the evidence. The ALJ did not abuse his discretion. There is no reason to disturb 

the ALJ's Order; jurisdiction was proper in this case and the ALJ did not err in finding the 

Complaint not proved. 

ORDER 

The ALJ's Decision and Order dated March 7, 2013, as. amended on March 12, 2013, is 

AFFIRMED. 

~_), 

Charles D. Michel 

Vice Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard 

Vice Commandant 

+"" J Signed at Washington, D.C., this ~ day of At.JvA{t."( 

~ '201+. 

5