Frost v. Garrison
| Decision Date | 10 January 1962 |
| Docket Number | Civ. No. 4566. |
| Citation | 201 F. Supp. 389 |
| Parties | Nedward M. FROST, Roy Colman, Mel Stonehouse, and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Lemuel A. (Lon) GARRISON, individually and as Superintendent of Yellowstone National Park, National Park Service, Department of the Interior, and agents and employees of the United States under his supervision and jurisdiction, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Wyoming |
Simpson, Kepler & Simpson, Cody, Wyo., for plaintiffs.
Robert N. Chaffin, U. S. Atty., Cheyenne, Wyo., for the United States.
This is a suit for a permanent injunction in which three individuals and others similarly situated seek to restrain the Superintendent of Yellowstone National Park and agents and employees of the United States under his supervision and jurisdiction from continuing the highly controversial so-called elk-slaughtering program.
The jurisdiction of this Court is asserted on the basis that defendants have acted in violation of the statutory prohibition against killing wild animals within the limits of the Yellowstone National Park. This is a criminal statute patently enacted to assist the Secretary of the Interior with the management and care and protection of the property within the Park. It cannot be construed to constitute a prohibition against the Secretary of Interior from destroying such animals as may be detrimental to the National Park. The jurisdiction of this Court cannot rest on illusory grounds.
Plaintiffs further attempt to enlist the jurisdiction of this Court by alleging that they "have an interest in the elk now being slaughtered in Yellowstone National Park", plaintiffs being outfitters and guides "whose livelihood is affected" by the acts complained of in the complaint, said acts allegedly driving plaintiffs out of business and depriving them of earning a livelihood. The specific acts complained of include (1) the embarking upon a "wanton, cruel, and needless slaughter of 5000 head of elk in the confines of Yellowstone National Park;" said elk allegedly comprising a part of the Northern Wyoming herd belonging to the States of Wyoming and Montana; (2) the unnecessary killing of said elk; and (3) a highhanded and autocratic attitude of defendants toward plaintiffs.
The United States government has moved to dismiss plaintiffs' complaint on the ground that this is, in substance, a suit against the United States and as such cannot be instituted without consent of the government; that defendant Garrison, as Superintendent of Yellowstone National Park, is an agent of the government and acted within the scope of his statutory authority; and that the statutes authorize the Secretary of the Interior to "provide in his discretion for the destruction of such animals and of such plant life as may be detrimental to the use of any said parks, monuments, or reservations". (16 U.S.C.A. § 3.)
By its motion the government has raised the issue of sovereign immunity. The cloak of immunity cannot protect a federal officer if he acts in excess of his statutory authority. (Pan American Petroleum Corp. v. Pierson et al., 10 Cir., 1960, 284 F.2d 649.) Likewise, this Court would have jurisdiction to restrain a federal officer from acting pursuant to authority illegally delegated to him or invalidly conferred upon him. (Harper v. Jones, 10 Cir., 1952, 195 F.2d 705.) The complaint falls short of meeting these requirements.
An injunction may be granted against an officer of the United States acting in his private or individual capacity if he acted unconstitutionally or beyond his statutory powers, or pursuant to an unconstitutional grant of power, or without delegated power. (Larson v. Domestic & Foreign Commerce Corp., 1948, 337 U.S. 682, 69 S.Ct. 1457, 93 L. Ed. 1628.) Plaintiffs' complaint contains no allegations of such actions on the part of the defendants nor any allegations that their acts exceeded their statutory...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Greater Yellowstone Coalition v. Babbitt
...frightened or driven from the Park. 16 U.S.C. § 26.8 However, Defendants have countered Plaintiffs' argument by citing Frost v. Garrison, 201 F.Supp. 389, 390 (D.Wyo.1962), which states that section 26 "cannot be construed to constitute a prohibition against the Secretary of Interior from d......
-
New Mexico State Game Commission v. Udall
...Water Users Ass'n. v. Weber Basin Water Conservancy, 10 Cir., 238 F.2d 936; New Mexico v. Backer, 10 Cir., 199 F.2d 426; Frost v. Garrison, D.C.Wyo., 201 F.Supp. 389. These decisions, as well as a myriad of others, recognize that if a federal officer or employee acts beyond the power confer......
-
New Mexico State Game Commission v. Udall
...369 U.S. 643, 82 S.Ct. 980, 8 L.Ed.2d 168; Pan American Petroleum Corp. v. Pierson, 284 F.2d 649 (10 Cir., 1960); Frost v. Garrison, 201 F.Supp. 389 (D.Wyo.1962). In the instant case, plaintiff alleges that defendants are without authority to do the acts complained of, and the Court conclud......
-
Intertribal Bison Co-Op. v. Babbitt
...the limits of said park...." 16 U.S.C. § 26. This statute criminalizes poaching by members of the general public. Frost v. Garrison, 201 F.Supp. 389, 390 (D.Wyo.1962). However, this anti-poaching statute does not limit the authority of NPS to destroy YNP wildlife pursuant to properly prepar......