Louisville and Nashville R. Co. v. Donovan

• Decision Date: 12 August 1983
• Docket Number: No. 82-5072,82-5072
• Citation: 713 F.2d 1243
• Parties: LOUISVILLE AND NASHVILLE RAILROAD CO., et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. Raymond J. DONOVAN, Secretary of Labor, et al., Defendants-Appellants.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit

Page 1243

713 F.2d 1243

LOUISVILLE AND NASHVILLE RAILROAD CO., et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. Raymond J. DONOVAN, Secretary of Labor, et al., Defendants-Appellants.

No. 82-5072.

United States Court of Appeals Sixth Circuit.

Argued Nov. 8, 1982.

Decided Aug. 12, 1983.

Stanley E. Alderson, Dept. of Justice, Washington, D.C., Ronald E. Meredith, U.S. Atty., Louisville, Ky., Leonard Schaitman, Marleigh Dover (argued), U.S. Dept. of Justice, Civ. Div., Washington, D.C., for defendants-appellants.

Edgar A. Zingman, Wyatt, Tarrant & Combs, Louisville, Ky., Charles Landrum, Jr., Landrum, Patterson & Dickey, Lexington, Ky., Bert T. Combs (argued), Louisville, Ky., for plaintiffs-appellees.

Before EDWARDS, Chief Circuit Judge, ENGEL, Circuit Judge, and WEICK, Senior Circuit Judge.

ENGEL, Circuit Judge.

The Secretary of Labor appeals from a judgment of the district court which permanently enjoins him from applying the Black Lung Benefits Act ("BLBA"), 30 U.S.C. § 901 et seq., to railroad employees, former railroad employees, or railroads. Upon consideration, we conclude that the district court lacked jurisdiction to grant the declaratory and injunctive relief sought by the plaintiffs. Accordingly, we remand with directions to vacate the judgment and to dismiss the action.

Fifteen railroads which transport coal in interstate commerce brought this action in the United States District Court for the Western District of Kentucky pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1337, 1361 and 2201, as amended, challenging Department of Labor guidelines for determining the eligibility of individuals engaged in coal transportation for BLBA benefits. ¹ At the time this suit was commenced, more than 700 claims had been filed under the BLBA by former and current railroad employees. The district court accepted the railroads' argument that as a matter of law they are not included within the definition of "operator" under the BLBA and, hence, are not liable for BLBA benefits.

It is well established that the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201, is not an independent source of federal jurisdiction. Schilling v. Rogers, 363 U.S. 666, 80 S.Ct. 1288, 4 L.Ed.2d 1478 (1960); Skelly Oil Co. v. Phillips Petroleum Co., 339 U.S. 667, 70 S.Ct. 876, 94 L.Ed. 1194 (1950); Michigan Savings and Loan League v. Francis, 683 F.2d 957 (6th Cir.1982); King v. Sloan, 545 F.2d 7 (6th Cir.1976). Similarly, some courts have held that 28 U.S.C. § 1361, which provides for "original jurisdiction of any action in the nature of mandamus to compel an officer or employee of the United States or any agency thereof to perform a duty owed to the plaintiff" does not provide an independent ground for subject matter jurisdiction. Starbuck v. City and County of San Francisco, 556 F.2d 450 (9th Cir.1977); Craig v. Colburn, 414 F.Supp. 185 (D.C.Kan.1976), aff'd, 570 F.2d 916 (10th Cir.1978); Jeno's, Inc. v. Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks, 498 F.Supp. 472 (D.C.Minn.1980). But cf. Dow Chemical v. Costle, 480 F.Supp. 315 (E.D.Mich.1978), aff'd, 659 F.2d 724 (6th Cir.1981) (dictum inferring section 1361 may independently grant subject matter jurisdiction). A clearer limitation on section 1361 jurisdiction is recognized where an exclusive statutory method of reviewing administrative action exists. CETA Workers Organizing Committee v. City of New York, 617 F.2d 926 (2d Cir.1980); Loveladies Property Owners Association, Inc. v. Raab, 430 F.Supp. 276 (D.N.J.1975), aff'd, 547 F.2d 1162 (3d Cir.1976); see also Wilson v. Secretary of Health and Human Services, 671 F.2d 673 (1st Cir.1982) (availability of administrative remedies and judicial review precludes mandamus jurisdiction); Association of American Medical Colleges v. Califano, 569 F.2d 101 (D.C.Cir.1977) (same). Likewise, district court jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1337, over "any civil action or proceeding arising under any act of Congress regulating commerce or protecting trade and commerce ..." may be precluded by a statutory scheme of review. Board of Trustees of Memorial Hospital v. NLRB, 523 F.2d 845 (10th Cir.1975); United Electrical Contractors Association v. Ordman, 258 F.Supp. 758 (N.D.N.Y.1965), aff'd, 366 F.2d 776 (2d Cir.1966), cert. denied, 385 U.S. 1026, 87 S.Ct. 753, 17 L.Ed.2d 674 (1967).

The same principle which limits jurisdiction under sections 1337 and 1361 applies with equal force to the general federal question jurisdiction granted in 28 U.S.C. § 1331. In Memphis Trust Co. v. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, 584 F.2d 921 (6th Cir.1978), our court held that "[g]eneral federal question jurisdiction under [§ 1331] ... is not available ... [w]here Congress has provided an adequate procedure to obtain review of agency action ...." Id. at 925.

Whitney National Bank v. Bank of New Orleans & Trust Co., 379 U.S. 411, 85 S.Ct. 551, 13 L.Ed.2d 386 (1965), provides the basic authority for this principle. That decision established that only those courts upon which Congress has bestowed authority have jurisdiction and that when Congress designates a forum for judicial review of administrative action, that forum is exclusive. Id. at 420, 422, 85 S.Ct. at 557, 558. We are convinced that with respect to the BLBA, Congress has conferred upon this court such sole and exclusive jurisdiction. In so holding, we agree with Judge Garth's analysis in Compensation Department of District Five v. Marshall, 667 F.2d 336 (3d Cir.1981). In that case, the United Mine Workers commenced an original action against the Secretary of Labor in district court contesting the Secretary's interpretation of BLBA provisions concerning the use of x-rays in determining the existence or non-existence of pneumoconiosis in a claimant. Judge Garth observed:

The central issue in this case is whether subject matter jurisdiction over District Five's complaint exists in the district courts. We hold that it does not, because we agree with the district court that the scheme of review established by Congress for determinations of black lung disability benefits was intended to be exclusive. Thus, the proper method for contesting the Secretary of Labor's interpretation of § 413(b) is to exhaust the administrative remedies provided under the statute and then to seek review, if desired, in the court of appeals, rather than to seek an injunction against the Secretary in district court.

Underlying our conclusion that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction is the general rule that if "there exists a special statutory review procedure, it is ordinarily supposed that Congress intended that procedure to be the exclusive means of obtaining judicial review in those cases to which it applies." City of Rochester v. Bond, 603 F.2d 927, 931 (D.C.Cir.1979). Moreover, "there is a strong presumption against the availability of simultaneous review in both the district court and the court of appeals." Sun Enterprises, Ltd. v. Train, 532 F.2d 280, 287 (2d Cir.1976). Because Congress has specifically provided for a statutory scheme whereby claims must first be decided administratively and then reviewed in the courts of appeals, with jurisdiction expressly provided for in the district courts only in specific, limited circumstances, our analysis begins with a presumption that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over this action. We look then to whether an examination of the statute's legislative history, purpose, and design reveals circumstances appearing in this case which are sufficient to overcome that presumption.

667 F.2d at 340. Although Compensation Department dealt with interpretation of a different section of the BLBA, we find its discussion and analysis of the four considerations underlying the Whitney National Bank decision cogent and persuasive in this case as well. See discussion at 667 F.2d at 341-42.

In reaching a contrary conclusion, the district court relied primarily upon Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner, 387 U.S. 136, 87 S.Ct. 1507, 18 L.Ed.2d 681 (1967). That case held that the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act did not prohibit pre-enforcement review of certain regulations promulgated by the Commissioner of Food and Drugs where the issue of statutory construction was "purely legal" and the regulations challenged were "final agency action" within section 10 of the Administrative Procedure Act ("APA"). Noting that the existence of 700 pending claims for black lung benefits against the plaintiff railroads made the issue "fit for judicial decision," the district judge concluded that the applicability of the BLBA to railroads was a "purely legal issue" and that the Department of Labor's adoption of the challenged internal guidelines clarifying the definition of a "miner" constituted "final action." See note 1, supra.

With respect to Abbott Laboratories, it is sufficient to note that that decision dealt exclusively with application of the APA and that Congress in enacting the BLBA expressly excluded the provisions of the APA. 30 U.S.C. § 956. Moreover, later authority indicates that Abbott Laboratories "arguably assumed with little discussion that the APA is an independent grant of subject matters jurisdiction." Califano v. Sanders, 430 U.S. 99, 105, 97 S.Ct. 980, 984, 51 L.Ed.2d 192 (1977). Califano determined that in fact the APA does not grant jurisdiction. Abbott Laboratories merely dealt with the timing of judicial review and not with the source of primary subject matter jurisdiction at issue here.

Nearly all the cases which address the question of district court jurisdiction for nonstatutory review of administrative action recognize that in narrow circumstances some residuum of federal question subject matter jurisdiction may exist in the United States District Court, although apparently otherwise precluded by a comprehensive statutory review scheme. Thus, as Judge Garth observed in Compensation Department: "[i]f the remedies provided for in the statutory scheme of review are inadequate in a...