reversal is warranted only for substantial and prejudicial errors in administrative procedure
How later courts described this case
- reversal is warranted only for substantial and prejudicial errors in administrative procedure
- arbitrary and capricious standard requires agency to base decision on consideration of relevant factors and avoid clear error
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 23 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
EITAN LEASCHAUER, No. 13-73818
Petitioner, NTSB No. EA-5680
v.
MEMORANDUM*
NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION
SAFETY BOARD; FEDERAL AVIATION
ADMINISTRATION,
Respondents.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
National Transportation Safety Board
Submitted June 14, 2016**
Before: BEA, WATFORD, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
Eitan Leaschauer petitions pro se for review of the National Transportation
Safety Board’s (“NTSB”) final order suspending Leaschauer’s private pilot
certificate pending reexamination. We have jurisdiction under 49 U.S.C. § 1153.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
We review the NTSB’s final order under the arbitrary and capricious standard.
Gilbert v. NTSB, 80 F.3d 364, 368 (9th Cir. 1996). We deny the petition for
review.
The NTSB’s determination that a reasonable basis existed for the Federal
Aviation Administration (“FAA”) to request reexamination of Leaschauer was not
arbitrary or capricious because substantial evidence supported the NTSB’s finding
that Leaschauer took off without prior clearance. See Arrington v. Daniels, 516
F.3d 1106, 1112 (9th Cir. 2008) (arbitrary and capricious standard requires agency
to base decision on consideration of relevant factors and avoid clear error); 49
U.S.C. § 1153(b)(3) (“Findings of fact by the Board, if supported by substantial
evidence, are conclusive.”); 49 U.S.C. § 44709 (empowering FAA to reexamine
certificate holders).
The NTSB’s determination that the chief administrative law judge (“ALJ”)
did not err by denying Leaschauer’s motion to disqualify the ALJ was not arbitrary
or capricious because Leaschauer failed to show that the ALJ had any bias or
prejudice from an extra-judicial source. See Arrington, 516 F.3d at 1112; Adm’r
v. Lackey, NTSB Order. No. EA-5419 at 11 (2008) (setting forth standard).
The NTSB’s determination that the ALJ’s grant of leave for the FAA to
2 13-73818
amend its complaint did not warrant relief was not arbitrary or capricious because
the amendment did not prejudice Leaschauer. See Janka v. NTSB, 925 F.2d 1147,
1152 (9th Cir. 1991) (reversal is warranted only for substantial and prejudicial
errors in administrative procedure).
We reject as unsupported by the record Leaschauer’s contentions that he was
denied due process during proceedings. Id.
We reject as without merit Leaschauer’s contentions regarding misconduct
by the ALJ or NTSB.
All pending motions and requests are denied.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 13-73818