Clajon Production Corp. v. Petera

• Decision Date: 08 June 1994
• Docket Number: No. 93-CV-0223-B.,93-CV-0223-B.
• Citation: Clajon Production Corp. v. Petera, 854 F.Supp. 843 (D. Wyo. 1994)
• Parties: CLAJON PRODUCTION CORPORATION; Marion H. and Mary C. Scott, husband and wife; and Salt Creek Ranch, L.L.C., a Wyoming limited liability corporation, Plaintiffs, v. Pete E. PETERA, Director of the Wyoming Game and Fish Department, in his personal capacity; Jay Lawson, Chief Game Warden of the Wyoming Game and Fish Department, in his personal capacity; and Dan Kennedy, Kevin Dooley, Mike Hunzie, Hal Corbett, Mary Flitner, Kari Priewe, and David Steger, members of the Wyoming Game and Fish Commission, in their personal capacities, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Wyoming

854 F. Supp. 843

CLAJON PRODUCTION CORPORATION; Marion H. and Mary C. Scott, husband and wife; and Salt Creek Ranch, L.L.C., a Wyoming limited liability corporation, Plaintiffs, v. Pete E. PETERA, Director of the Wyoming Game and Fish Department, in his personal capacity; Jay Lawson, Chief Game Warden of the Wyoming Game and Fish Department, in his personal capacity; and Dan Kennedy, Kevin Dooley, Mike Hunzie, Hal Corbett, Mary Flitner, Kari Priewe, and David Steger, members of the Wyoming Game and Fish Commission, in their personal capacities, Defendants.

No. 93-CV-0223-B.

United States District Court, D. Wyoming.

June 8, 1994.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

James R. Scarantino, Albuquerque, NM, Franklin J. Falen, Cheyenne, WY, for plaintiff.

Ron Arnold, Sr. Asst. Atty. Gen., Mary B. Guthrie, Deputy Atty. Gen., Kristi Sansonetti, Asst. Atty. Gen., Cheyenne, WY, for defendants.

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND DENYING PLAINTIFFS' CROSS-MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT

BRIMMER, District Judge.

The above-entitled matter having come before the Court on the Defendants' Motions for Summary Judgment, and the Plaintiffs' Oppositions thereto; and the Plaintiffs' Cross-Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, and the Defendants' Opposition thereto; and the Court, having considered the materials on file both in support thereof and in opposition thereto, having heard oral argument from the parties, and being fully advised in the premises, hereby FINDS and ORDERS as follows:

Procedural Background

This lawsuit involves various federal constitutional challenges to the regulatory scheme governing the allocation and distribution of hunting licenses within the State of Wyoming.¹ At its core, this case raises difficult and fundamental questions regarding the relationship between sovereign and private citizen over one of the oldest and most sacred rights possessed in a democratic society, the right to own and use real property.

On August 2, 1993, the plaintiffs in this matter, Clajon Production Corporation ("Clajon"), Marion H. and Mary C. Scott (the "Scotts"), and the Salt Creek Ranch, L.L.C. ("SCR"), filed the present suit. Clajon, a Texas corporation, is a wholly-owned entity of Clajon Holdings Corporation, a Delaware corporation controlled by the Clayton W. Williams, Jr. family of Texas. Clajon owns in excess of 90,000 acres in Carbon County, Wyoming. The Scotts are residents of Campbell County, Wyoming, near the city of Gillette, where they own and operate a ranch of around 8,400 deeded acres plus a neighboring ranch of several thousand acres, which they lease from Mr. Scott's father, the owner of the land. SCR is a family-owned and operated ranch which owns over 40,000 acres in Natrona and Converse Counties within the state of Wyoming, near the town of Edgerton. It is undisputed that the plaintiffs' landholdings encompass numerous acres of wildlife habitat which support sizeable numbers of wild animals and big game, including elk, deer and antelope.²

The plaintiffs' initial complaint named the State of Wyoming and the Wyoming Game and Fish Commission (the "Commission") as defendants and sought declaratory and injunctive relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ? 1983 (1988). The plaintiffs alleged that several existing rules and regulations governing the distribution and allocation of hunting licenses in Wyoming were unconstitutional. On August 25, 1993, the State of Wyoming and the Commission moved to dismiss the complaint on the grounds that they were immune from suit under the Eleventh Amendment. Before this Court issued a ruling on that motion, the plaintiffs amended their complaint to name individuals members of both the Commission and the Wyoming Game and Fish Department (the "Department") as defendants, rather than the State and the Commission as entities.³ The only difference between the original and amended complaints was in the named defendants; the substance of the amended complaint, and the claims contained therein, were identical to those raised in the original complaint.

On November 17, 1993, a motion was filed on behalf of eleven groups and individuals who sought leave to intervene permissively pursuant to Rule 24(b)(2) on behalf of the defendants in this action. The applicant-intervenors are the National Wildlife Federation; the Wyoming Wildlife Federation; the Wyoming Outdoor Council; the Dubois Wildlife Association; the Heart Mountain Wildlife Association; the Greater Yellowstone Coalition; the Medicine Butte Wildlife Association; the Wyoming Chapter of the Sierra Club; Orion, The Hunters Institute; Taylor Outfitters; and Phyllis Atchison.

In support of their motion to intervene, these conservation and hunting organizations advised this Court that they represent over 12,000 people in Wyoming along with over a million individuals outside of the state. These applicants further stated that they all possessed an interest in the subject matter of this litigation and that is why they sought leave for permissive intervention. Although the plaintiffs opposed the motion to intervene, this Court nonetheless exercised its discretion and granted the motion to intervene at oral argument on this matter, finding that the applicants satisfied the criteria set forth in Rule 24(b)(2). See N.A.A.C.P. v. New York, 413 U.S. 345, 366, 93 S.Ct. 2591, 2603, 37 L.Ed.2d 648 (1973) (noting that rulings on motions to intervene are subject to review only for an abuse of discretion). As a result, the applicants now hold the status of intervenor-defendants.

The plaintiffs' amended complaint challenges the constitutionality of Wyoming's statutory and regulatory scheme for allocating hunting licenses under the so-called "negative" commerce clause,⁴ the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment⁵ and the takings clause of the Fifth Amendment.⁶ Specifically, the plaintiffs argue that ? 23-1-103, along with ?? 3 and 6 of chapter XLIV of the Commission's regulations, are unconstitutional. In order to understand fully the basis for these claims, it will be necessary to review briefly the regulatory scheme regarding licensing that presently exists in Wyoming.

Factual Background

A. The Legislative and Administrative Framework

Over fifty years ago, the state legislature enacted a comprehensive statutory framework to regulate the taking of wildlife within the State of Wyoming. See generally Wyo. Stat. ?? 23-1-101 to -901 (1991). The purpose of this legislation was to codify the "policy of the State of Wyoming to provide an adequate and flexible system for control, propagation, management, protection and regulation of all Wyoming wildlife." See Wyo.Stat. ? 23-1-103 (1991), quoted in O'Brien v. State, 711 P.2d 1144, 1148 (Wyo. 1986). In recognition of the fact that wildlife is a valuable and depletable natural resource, ? 23-1-103 expressly provides that "all wildlife in Wyoming is the property of the state." In their motion for summary judgment, the defendants correctly concede that this declaration of ownership does not purport to be a claim of actual proprietary ownership of the wildlife, but rather, constitutes a claim of ownership by the state in its sovereign capacity for the common benefit and interest of all of its citizens. Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment, Oct. 5, 1993, at 11 (citing O'Brien, 711 P.2d at 1149 (discussing ? 23-1-103)).

Part of the legislature's means for achieving their expressed goals and furthering the policies discussed above included the creation of an administrative entity within the executive branch, the Commission⁷ and a sub-entity under its control, the Department,⁸ both of which were designed to oversee and implement the legislative will at a hands-on level. The function of these agencies was to be achieved by way of a delegation of lawmaking authority from the legislature to them. See, e.g., Wyo.Stat. ? 23-1-302(a)(xiv) and (xxii)⁹ (1991) (delineating the scope of the Commission's powers and duties); Wyo. Stat. ? 23-1-303(e) (noting that rules and regulations of the Commission and the Department must comply with the Wyoming Administrative Procedure Act ("WAPA")).

A separate section of this legislative plan states that an individual must obtain a state hunting license in order to take big game lawfully. See Wyo.Stat. ? 23-2-101(a) (1991). It thus became evident that part of the responsibilities of the Commission and the Department would include promulgation of rules and regulations governing the requirements for, and distribution of, licenses to individuals who wished to hunt wildlife within the state.¹⁰

In compliance with the WAPA, the Commission and the Department exercised their lawmaking powers and eventually enacted a set of regulations entitled "Chapter XLIV: Regulation for Issuance of Licenses." Sections 3, 5 and 6 of these regulations are implicated in this lawsuit.¹¹

The formula used by the Commission for determining the number of licenses to be made available in a given year is calculated based on an assessment of the game population for each particular species of game and accounts for certain conservationist and policy-oriented goals with respect to each species. The Commission must then compare the total number of licenses which it determines to make available with the number of licenses that are sought. Obviously, if the number of licenses made available is greater than the number sought, then every applicant will receive a license. If, however, the number of licenses made available is less than the number of licenses sought, then the regulations make it clear that a random computer selection is utilized to determine who will receive licenses.

Section 3 of the regulation provides a special means of granting additional licenses for landowners, and it expressly applies to individual and corporate landowners, resident and non-resident alike. It was adopted pursuant to a recent statutory amendment, which directs the...