Hueter v. Haaland

• Decision Date: 16 February 2022
• Docket Number: Civ. 21-00344 JMS-KJM
• Parties: STEVEN JAY PINCUS HUETER, AKA TAO, ET AL., Plaintiffs, v. DEBRA ANNE HAALAND, ET AL., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Hawaii

1

STEVEN JAY PINCUS HUETER, AKA TAO, ET AL., Plaintiffs, v. DEBRA ANNE HAALAND, ET AL., Defendants.

Civ. No. 21-00344 JMS-KJM

United States District Court, D. Hawaii

February 16, 2022

ORDER (1) GRANTING FEDERAL DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS, ECF NO. 53; AND (2) GRANTING IN PART AMERICAN SAMOA GOVERNMENT DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS, ECF NO 56

J Michael Seabright Chief United States District Judge

I. INTRODUCTION

Pro se Plaintiffs Steven Jay Pincus Hueter, Faamuli Pete Faamuli, and Michael “Candyman” Kirk (“Plaintiffs”) bring suit against a number of federal government officials (“Federal Defendants”), American Samoa government officials (“ASG Defendants”), and unnamed private fishermen and their affiliates (“Doe Defendants”). Plaintiffs allege violations of the Endangered Species Act (“ESA”), 16 U.S.C. § 1531 et seq.; the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act (“MPRSA”), 33 U.S.C. § 1401 et seq.; the National Marine Sanctuaries Act (“NMSA”), 16 U.S.C. § 1431 et seq; and a variety of territorial environmental statutes, all stemming from alleged illegal fishing within the Alega Marine and Wildlife Sanctuary and Reserve (“Alega Reserve”), a privately-owned marine protected area. In addition, Plaintiffs allege that the Federal Defendants are violating Plaintiffs' rights to due process by failing to enforce federal environmental laws against the Doe Defendants, and ask the court to compel the Federal Defendants to initiate enforcement actions.

Before the court are a Motion to Dismiss filed by the Federal Defendants, ECF No. 53, and a Motion to Dismiss filed by the ASG Defendants, ECF No. 56. For the reasons set forth below, the Federal Defendants' Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED and the Federal Defendants are DISMISSED from the action. After dismissal of all claims against the Federal Defendants, the only remaining federal claim-and therefore the only basis for this court's subject-matter jurisdiction-is an ESA claim against the Doe Defendants. This claim cannot proceed unless the Doe Defendants are identified. And, in the event that there is no remaining basis for federal subject-matter jurisdiction, the court intends to decline supplementary jurisdiction over the territorial law claims asserted against the ASG Defendants. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). The ASG Defendants' Motion to Dismiss is therefore held in abeyance pending determination of whether the Doe Defendants can be identified and a claim against them may proceed.

II. BACKGROUND

Plaintiffs are residents of Alega Village, American Samoa, and are all officers of the Alega Preservation Institute, a 501(c)(3) public charity responsible for stewardship of the Alega Reserve. See ECF No. 46 at PageID ## 381-82. The Alega Reserve is a privately-owned marine protected area within the waters and foreshore of Alega Village. See Id. at PageID # 381. Plaintiff Faamuli Pete Faamuli is also the Sa'O (Chief) of Alega Village. Id.

On October 13, 2021, Plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint (“Complaint”), ECF No. 46, and a Motion for “Temporary Restraining Order, and for Preliminary Injunction and for Permanent Injunction” (“Motion for TRO”), ECF No. 47. The Complaint names as Defendants (1) the United States Secretary of the Interior, the United States Secretary of Commerce, the Deputy Director of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service itself (collectively, the “Federal Defendants”); (2) the American Samoa Department of Marine and Wildlife Resources (“DMWR”), the Director of the DMWR, and several unidentified DMWR employees (the “ASG Defendants”); and (3) 20 unknown commercial fishermen (the “Doe Defendants”). ECF No. 46 at PageID ## 382-84.

All of Plaintiffs' claims arise from commercial fishing activity that allegedly occurred within the Alega Reserve. In their Complaint, Plaintiffs allege that the Doe Defendants have been conducting commercial fishing within the waters of the Alega Reserve for “years, ” including a specific documented occurrence on May 1, 2021. Id. at PageID ## 409, 413-14. Plaintiffs allege that this commercial fishing in the Alega Reserve “harms the survivability” of hawksbill and green sea turtles, both of which are listed as endangered under the ESA. Id. at PageID # 392. Specifically, Plaintiffs state that fishing of “near threatened” parrotfish species degrades the turtles' reef habitat because parrot fish are “essential to the coral reef, by virtue of their biological functions of cleansing and maintenance of the coral reef, and excretion of sand en masse.” Id. at PageID # 413. In addition, Plaintiffs assert that illegal fishing harms the turtles “by killing approximately 100 assorted fish and crustation [sic], including female spiny lobsters with eggs, that are part of the omnivore diet of the turtles. Deprivation of food supply harms the survival of the endangered and threatened Green and Hawksbill turtle species.” Id. at PageID # 414. Finally, Plaintiffs assert that illegal fishing by motorboat in the Alega Reserve causes “collateral damage of continued depositions of oil which appear as an oil slick in the marine sanctuary, and clearly damage the fragile marine environment and ecological systems.” ECF No. 59 at PageID ## 743-44.

Plaintiffs allege that this commercial fishing activity violates several federal environmental laws and seek to compel the Federal Defendants to enforce these environmental laws against the Doe Defendants. Specifically, Plaintiffs seek to compel the Secretary of Commerce to enforce violations of the NMSA and to compel the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to enforce the ESA, the MPRSA, and “any other federal law[s] that apply to the present controversy” against the Doe Defendants. ECF No. 46 at PageID # 425. Plaintiffs move to enjoin the Federal Defendants directly under these federal environmental statutes, pursuant to the Mandamus Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1361, and on the ground that the Federal Defendants are violating Plaintiffs' due process rights by failing to take enforcement actions. ECF No. 46 at PageID ## 387-88. Finally, they ask the court to compel the Secretary of the Interior to use her “plenary authority over the Government . . . of American Samoa” to coerce the ASG Defendants to undertake enforcement actions. Id. at PageID # 395.

Plaintiffs next allege that the commercial fishing violates various American Samoa statutory provisions and that rather than enforcing these laws against commercial fishermen in Alega, American Samoa Government officials are instead taking bribes in exchange for allowing commercial fishing to go forward within the Reserve. Id. at PageID # 398. They seek to compel the ASG Defendants to take enforcement actions against the commercial fishermen. Id. at PageID # 426.

Finally, Plaintiffs “sue the Defendants John and Jane Doe Commercial Fishermen” directly “to stop them from commercial fishing in Alega Waters and in the waters of the private Alega Marine Protected Area.” Id. And Plaintiffs request a “Declaration of Rights or Declaratory Judgment that Plaintiff Chief Faamuli Pete Faamuli has valid existing rights to land and water in Alega.” Id. at PageID # 431.

On November 10, 2021, the Federal Defendants filed a “Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint and Opposition to Motion for Temporary Restraining Order.” ECF No. 53. The Federal Defendants argue that the court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over Plaintiffs' MPRSA and NMSA claims, and that, in any event, Plaintiffs have failed to state a cognizable claim for relief as to all counts. See ECF No. 53-1 at PageID ## 692-703. On November 12, 2021, the ASG Defendants also filed a Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint and Opposition to the Motion for Temporary Restraining Order. ECF No. 55. The ASG Defendants argue that (1) Plaintiffs lack standing; (2) the court lacks personal jurisdiction over the ASG Defendants; and (3) Plaintiffs have failed to state a claim on which relief can be granted. Id. at PageID ## 718-23. On December 3, 2021, Plaintiffs filed Oppositions to both the Federal Defendants' Motion and the ASG Defendants' Motion. ECF Nos. 59, 60. The Federal Defendants filed a Reply on December 10, 2021. ECF No. 61. These matters are decided without a hearing pursuant to Local Rule 7.1(c).

III. STANDARDS OF REVIEW

A. Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction

A federal court's subject-matter jurisdiction may be challenged by motion pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1). “[The] party invoking the federal court's jurisdiction has the burden of proving the actual existence of subject matter jurisdiction.” Thompson v. McCombe, 99 F.3d 352, 353 (9th Cir. 1996) (per curiam).

“A Rule 12(b)(1) jurisdictional attack may be facial or factual.” Safe Air for Everyone v. Meyer, 373 F.3d 1035, 1039 (9th Cir. 2004). Here, Defendants raise a facial attack-they “assert[] that the [Complaint's] allegations . . . are insufficient on their face to invoke federal jurisdiction.” Id. The court resolves a facial attack as it would a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6): Accepting the plaintiff's allegations as true and drawing all reasonable inferences in the plaintiffs favor, the court determines whether the allegations are sufficient to invoke the court's jurisdiction. See Pride v. Correa, 719 F.3d 1130, 1133 (9th Cir. 2013). The court will dismiss a party's claim for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction “only when the claim is so insubstantial, implausible, foreclosed by prior decisions of th[e Supreme] Court, or otherwise completely devoid of merit as not to involve a federal controversy.” Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env 't, 523 U.S. 83, 89 (1998) (citation and quotation marks omitted); see Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1).

B. Motion to Dismiss...