Enterprise Mgmt. Consultants v. US ex rel. Hodel, No. CIV-87-2464-A.

CourtUnited States District Courts. 10th Circuit. Western District of Oklahoma
Writing for the CourtRandy D. Witzke, Oklahoma City, Okl., for plaintiff
Citation685 F. Supp. 221
PartiesENTERPRISE MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS, INC., Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES of America ex rel. Donald HODEL, Secretary of the United States Department of Interior, et al., Defendants.
Docket NumberNo. CIV-87-2464-A.
Decision Date23 May 1988

685 F. Supp. 221

ENTERPRISE MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS, INC., Plaintiff,
v.
UNITED STATES of America ex rel.
Donald HODEL, Secretary of the United States Department of Interior, et al., Defendants.

No. CIV-87-2464-A.

United States District Court, W.D. Oklahoma.

May 23, 1988.


Randy D. Witzke, Oklahoma City, Okl., for plaintiff.

Thomas H. Pacheco, Dept. of Justice, Land and Natural Resources Div., Washington, D.C., William S. Price, U.S. Atty., Eleanor Darden Thompson, Asst. U.S. Atty., Oklahoma City, Okl., for defendants.

ORDER

ALLEY, District Judge.

On April 8, 1988 the Court directed the parties to submit briefs on the issue whether this Court has jurisdiction to entertain this case. Plaintiff responded with a brief,

685 F. Supp. 222
defendant with a motion to dismiss for want of jurisdiction accompanied by a brief, to which plaintiff has also responded

This Court lacks jurisdiction, for two reasons. The two reasons are closely related by a common conceptual core, but have different juridical bases.

To begin with, the Court accepts, as it must, the position taken by our Court of Appeals, as to which the courts have been riven, that the Administrative Procedures Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. §§ 702-704, affords jurisdiction for the conduct of review of agency action without necessity to identify an extrinsic source of power over the case in some other law. Bard v. Seamans, 507 F.2d 765, 768 (10th Cir.1974). However, that is but the first step in jurisdictional analysis. This Court may lack jurisdiction because of general principles precluding its exercise whatever the statutory basis, or because within the APA there is an impediment to its exercise.

The Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201, also invoked by plaintiff, is not a jurisdictional grant, but only affords a modern remedy in a "case of actual controversy within ... the district court's jurisdiction...." Plaintiff invokes the Act in quest for a remedy, but it may be ignored for purposes of the issue at hand. Skelly Oil Co. v. Phillips Petroleum Co., 339 U.S. 667, 70 S.Ct. 876, 94 L.Ed. 1194 (1950); McGrath v. Weinberger, 541 F.2d 249 (10th Cir.1976), cert. denied 430 U.S. 933, 97 S.Ct. 1557, 51 L.Ed.2d 778 (1977).

The doors of this courthouse are not open to redress every disappointment in contracting or to heal every economic malady. Rather, we are here to provide remedies for certain violations of legal rights. Our touchstone for assuming the due role of this Court is standing.

"The actual or threatened injury required by Art III may exist solely by virtue of `statutes creating legal rights, the invasion of which creates standing (citations omitted)....' Moreover, the source of the plaintiff's claim to relief assumes critical importance with respect to the prudential rules of standing that, apart from Art III's minimum requirements, serve to limit the role of the courts in resolving public disputes. Essentially, the standing question in such cases is whether the constitutional or statutory provision on which the claim rests properly can be understood as granting persons in the plaintiff's position a right to judicial relief.... (emphasis supplied.)" Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 500, 95 S.Ct. 2197, 2206, 45 L.Ed.2d 343 (1975).

In its brief on April 22, 1988, plaintiff identifies 25 U.S.C. § 81 as "governing the review of certain contracts involving Indian tribes by the Bureau of Indian Affairs...." and points to 25 C.F.R., Ch. 1, Part 2 as providing the source of appeals within the Bureau. Plaintiff...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 practice notes
  • U.S. ex rel. Hall v. Tribal Development Corp., No. 93-3519
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (7th Circuit)
    • March 9, 1995
    ...interest test, the Eighth Circuit relied upon two district court decisions, Enterprise Mgmt. Consultants v. United States ex rel. Hodel, 685 F.Supp. 221 (W.D.Okla.1988), aff'd 883 F.2d 890 (10th Cir.1989), and United States ex rel. Shakopee, both of which addressed the same issue that was b......
  • Western Shoshone Business Council For and on Behalf of Western Shoshone Tribe of Duck Valley Reservation v. Babbitt, No. 92-4062
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (10th Circuit)
    • July 27, 1993
    ...Management Co., 980 F.2d 498 (8th Cir.1992) (per curiam); Enterprise Management Consultants, Inc. v. United States ex rel. Hodel, 685 F.Supp. 221, 223 (W.D.Okla.1988) ("plaintiff is not even arguably within the 'zone of interest' to be protected by [Sec. 81]"), aff'd on other grounds, 883 F......
  • Potawatomi Indian Tribe v. ENTERPRISE MGT. CONSUL., No. CIV-86-1171-A.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 10th Circuit. Western District of Oklahoma
    • April 11, 1990
    ...prior occasion as to the specific agreements at issue here. See Enterprise Management Consultants, Inc. v. United States ex rel. Hodel, 685 F.Supp. 221, 222 (W.D.Okla.1988), aff'd, 883 F.2d 890 (10th Consequently, the conclusion is inescapable that the two bingo management agreements execut......
  • U.S. ex rel. Citizen Band Potawatomi Indian Tribe of Oklahoma v. Enterprise Management Consultants, Inc., No. 88-2311
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (10th Circuit)
    • August 28, 1989
    ...that it had no jurisdiction over the suit against the federal officials. See Enterprise Management Consultants, Inc. v. United States, 685 F.Supp. 221 (W.D.Okla.1988). EMCI appealed to this In an opinion filed today, we affirm the dismissal of the Tribe on sovereign immunity grounds. We als......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
6 cases
  • U.S. ex rel. Hall v. Tribal Development Corp., No. 93-3519
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (7th Circuit)
    • March 9, 1995
    ...interest test, the Eighth Circuit relied upon two district court decisions, Enterprise Mgmt. Consultants v. United States ex rel. Hodel, 685 F.Supp. 221 (W.D.Okla.1988), aff'd 883 F.2d 890 (10th Cir.1989), and United States ex rel. Shakopee, both of which addressed the same issue that was b......
  • Western Shoshone Business Council For and on Behalf of Western Shoshone Tribe of Duck Valley Reservation v. Babbitt, No. 92-4062
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (10th Circuit)
    • July 27, 1993
    ...Management Co., 980 F.2d 498 (8th Cir.1992) (per curiam); Enterprise Management Consultants, Inc. v. United States ex rel. Hodel, 685 F.Supp. 221, 223 (W.D.Okla.1988) ("plaintiff is not even arguably within the 'zone of interest' to be protected by [Sec. 81]"), aff'd on other grounds, 883 F......
  • Potawatomi Indian Tribe v. ENTERPRISE MGT. CONSUL., No. CIV-86-1171-A.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 10th Circuit. Western District of Oklahoma
    • April 11, 1990
    ...prior occasion as to the specific agreements at issue here. See Enterprise Management Consultants, Inc. v. United States ex rel. Hodel, 685 F.Supp. 221, 222 (W.D.Okla.1988), aff'd, 883 F.2d 890 (10th Consequently, the conclusion is inescapable that the two bingo management agreements execut......
  • U.S. ex rel. Citizen Band Potawatomi Indian Tribe of Oklahoma v. Enterprise Management Consultants, Inc., No. 88-2311
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (10th Circuit)
    • August 28, 1989
    ...that it had no jurisdiction over the suit against the federal officials. See Enterprise Management Consultants, Inc. v. United States, 685 F.Supp. 221 (W.D.Okla.1988). EMCI appealed to this In an opinion filed today, we affirm the dismissal of the Tribe on sovereign immunity grounds. We als......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT