Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Michael Minas, Petitioner v. United States

No. _________

___________________________________________

In The

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

_______________________________________________________________

MICHAEL MINAS, Petitioner,

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent.

_______________________________________________________________

On Petition For Writ Of Certiorari

To The United States Court Of Appeals

For The Ninth Circuit

_______________________________________________________________

PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

_______________________________________________________________

C. TOM ARKOOSH

ARKOOSH LAW OFFICES

802 W. Bannock St., Ste. 900

P.O. Box 2900

Boise, ID 83701

(208) 343-5105

tom.arkoosh@arkoosh.com

Counsel of Record

Attorney for Petitioner

__________________________________________

QUESTION PRESENTED:

Must the activities which constitute the legitimate practice of medicine in the

prosecution of a licensed physician for unlawful distribution of opioids in violation of

21 U.S.C. § 841 be defined by state law and explained in the Court’s instructions, or

may the Court instead ignore state law and rely solely on expert testimony to describe

for the jury what activities constitute the practice of medicine?

i

LIST OF PARTIES

All parties appear in the caption of the case on the cover page.

ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

QUESTION PRESENTED ......................................................................................... i

LIST OF PARTIES ..................................................................................................... ii

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ......................................................................................iii

PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI ................................................................ 1

OPINIONS BELOW ................................................................................................... 1

JURISDICTION.......................................................................................................... 1

CONSTITUTION AND STATUTORY PROVISIONS INVOLVED ......................... 1

STATEMENT OF THE CASE.................................................................................... 2

REASONS FOR GRANTING THE PETITION ......................................................... 3

CONCLUSION............................................................................................................ 5

INDEX TO APPENDICES ................................................................................. App. 1

iii

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Page

Cases

Gonzales v. Oregon, 546 U.S. 243 (2006) .............................................................. 2, 3, 1

United States v. Feingold, 454 F. 3d 1001 (9th Cir. 2006) ....................................... 2, 4

United States v. Moore, 423 U.S. 122 (1975). ............................................................... 2

Constitutional Provisions

Amendment 10 ............................................................................................................... 1

Statutes

21 U.S.C. § 841 ........................................................................................................ i, 2, 3

28 U.S.C. § 1254(1) ........................................................................................................ 1

Idaho Code § 54-1803................................................................................................. 2, 3

Other Authorities

Controlled Substances Act ........................................................................................ 3, 4

iv

IN THE SUPREME COURT

FOR THE UNITED STATES

_________________________________________________

PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI

_________________________________________________

Petitioner Michael Minas respectfully submits this petition for a writ of

certiorari.

OPINIONS BELOW

The opinion of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals appears at Appendix A to

this Petition. The court’s opinion was published at 697 Fed.Appx. 531 (Mem)(9th Cir.

1917), but not chosen for publication in West’s Federal Reporter.

JURISDICTION

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued its decision on September 14, 2017.

(App. A). Dr. Minas petitioned for rehearing on September 21, 2017. (App. B). The

Ninth Circuit denied rehearing on October 24, 2017. (App. C). The Ninth Circuit

Court of Appeals issued its mandate on November 1, 2017. (App. D). The jurisdiction

of this court is invoked under 28 U.S.C. § 1254(1).

CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY PROVISIONS INVOLVED

Amendment 10:

[Rights reserved to states or people]. – The powers not delegated to the United

States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states

respectively, or to the people.

1

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

A jury in the District of Idaho convicted Dr. Michael Minas of 80 counts of

trafficking opioids on May 5, 2017, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841. The conviction

arose out of the government’s allegations that Dr. Minas prescribed opioids outside

the regular course of medical practice and without a legitimate medical purpose.

United States v. Moore, 423 U.S. 122 (1975). Dr. Minas’ defense primarily relied upon

his activities being the legitimate practice of medicine. In support of this defense, Dr.

Minas requested a jury instruction paraphrasing Idaho Code § 54-1803 (App. E, F

and G), which defines the practice of medicine under state law. The district court

declined to instruct the jury upon the elements of the practice of medicine as defined

by Idaho law, leaving the jury to glean what it could from expert testimony regarding

what behavior constitutes the legitimate practice of medicine, (App. H).

In 2006, this Court released Gonzales v. Oregon, 546 U.S. 243 (2006) holding

that the state legislatures, and not functionaries of the Federal Government, define

general standards of medical practice.

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the conviction of Dr. Minas, holding the district

court did not err in denying Dr. Minas’ proposed jury instruction because, “[t]he

instruction would have been confusing, and the instructions given fairly and

adequately covered the proper finding of intent. See Feingold, 454 F.3d at 1008.”

(App. A-3), citing U.S. v. Feingold, 454 F.3d 1001 (9th Cir. 2006). Further, the Ninth

2

Circuit found the government’s expert testimony “necessary to assess whether

Minas’s [sic] actions were criminal.” (App. A-3).

Dr. Minas now seeks a writ of certiorari from this Court on the important

question presented in this case.

REASONS FOR GRANTING THE PETITION

Reliance upon the testimony of federally-sponsored experts to define the

practice of medicine for the jury conflicts with the mandate of this Court in Gonzales

that state legislatures, not the Department of Justice, define the practice of medicine.

This Court addressed in Gonzales the interplay between the Controlled

Substances Act enacted in 1970, of which the statute of conviction here, 21 U.S.C. §

841, is a part, and state law, excludes federal functionaries from making medical

policy decisions. In Gonzales, the United States Attorney General sought to prohibit

physician-assisted suicide as a criminal activity under the Controlled Substances Act,

even though the state of Oregon’s legislature specifically authorized that activity as

the legitimate practice of medicine. This Court held that the states, and not a federal

executive, define general standards of medical practice.

The State of Idaho has defined the general standards of medical practice by

defining what is the practice of medicine in Idaho Code § 54-1803.

(App. H).

Generally, those activities constituting the practice of medicine in Idaho include the

examination of a patient, diagnosis and treatment of the patient’s condition. The

evidence in this case is uncontroverted that Dr. Minas was treating only for a

3

diagnosis of pain or what he believed to be a diagnosis of pain. (App. B-6). At trial in

this matter, the court declined to present this paradigm to the jury as a state

statutory construct.

Instead, the court characterized that whether activity was

criminal as a “battle of experts.” (App. I-5).

Feingold does, indeed, describe a battle of experts, which thus appears to have

become the standard in the Ninth Circuit when defining the practice of medicine.

Relying upon its earlier decision in Feingold, the Ninth Circuit commended

exclusive reliance upon experts as “necessary” (App. A-3), and dismissed the need to

instruct the jury upon the legislative definition of the practice of medicine as

“confusing.” (App. A-3).

The confusion referenced by the Ninth Circuit could only

arise from any perceived difference between what a federally-sponsored expert

describes as the legitimate practice of medicine and what the Idaho state legislature

has statutorily described as the legitimate practice of medicine. The experts’ views

of the practice of medicine went to the jury. The Idaho state statutory definition of

the practice of medicine, which this Court deems controlling for purposes of

determining violation of the Controlled Substances Act by physicians, did not go to

the jury, but should have.

4

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, Petitioner respectfully submits that this Petition for

Writ of Certiorari should be granted.

DATED this 3rd day of January, 2018.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ C. Tom Arkoosh

C. Tom Arkoosh

ARKOOSH LAW OFFICES

802 W. Bannock St., Ste. 900

P.O. Box 2900

Boise, ID 83701

(208) 343-5105

tom.arkoosh@arkoosh.com

Counsel of Record

Attorney for Petitioner

5

INDEX TO APPENDICES

Page

Appendix A:

Memorandum of the 9th Circuit Court .................................................................... A-1

Appendix B:

Appellant’s Petition for Rehearing En Banc (Rule 35, FRAP) and

by the Panel (Rule 40, FRAP) ................................................................................. B-1

Appendix C:

Order of the 9th Circuit Court,

dated October 24, 2017 ............................................................................................ C-1

Appendix D:

Mandate of the 9th Circuit Court............................................................................. D-1

Appendix E:

Proposed Jury Instruction ....................................................................................... E-1

Appendix F:

Trial transcript pages regarding request to include proposed jury instruction .... F-1

Appendix G:

Idaho Code § 54-1803............................................................................................... G-1

Appendix H:

Trial transcript pages regarding district court’s denial of request to include

proposed jury instruction ........................................................................................ H-1

Appendix I:

Order of the District Court in the District of Idaho,

dated September 8, 2017 ......................................................................................... I-1

App. 1