Noren v. Beck
| Citation | 199 F. Supp. 708 |
| Decision Date | 21 November 1961 |
| Docket Number | Civ. No. 2139. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of California |
| Parties | Leonard S. NOREN and Harry C. Perry, Plaintiffs, v. Walter E. BECK, as Manager of the United States Land Office at Sacramento, California, et al., Defendants. |
Edson Abel, Middletown, Cal., for plaintiffs.
Francis C. Whelan, U. S. Atty., Melvin C. Blum, Asst. U. S. Atty., Los Angeles, Cal., for defendants.
This is an action wherein plaintiffs seek, under the provisions of Title 5 United States Code Annotated § 1009(e) of the Administrative Procedure Act, a trial de novo concerning various administrative determinations made within the Bureau of Land Management, Department of the Interior, in connection with certain land entries filed by them.
The plaintiffs, among other things, allege in their complaint that the administrative action within the Department of the Interior was "arbitrary, capricious, discriminatory, unlawful, illegal, and a denial of rights accorded plaintiffs, in that the soil in the case of all * * * applications heretofore mentioned was and is of substantially the same type and character and in truth and in fact the land in each of the * * * applications for desert land entry heretofore mentioned was and is land, not timber or known mineral, which by appropriate reclamation methods and with irrigation can be made to produce abundant agricultural crops of various kinds as shown by actual agricultural operations on land of substantially the same type and character in the immediate vicinity and in the same soil classification and by recognized agricultural tests."
This matter has progressed up to the point where the court set the matter for pretrial hearing pursuant to Local Rule 9 of Rules of Civil Procedure for the United States District Court for the Southern District of California, West's Ann.Code. At this time the defendants filed their motion for an order relieving them from complying with said Local Rule 9 and for an order submitting the case upon an agreed statement of facts, to wit, the administrative record, contending that the scope of judicial review by a district court is limited to a review of the administrative record, and not a trial de novo.
Title 5 United States Code Annotated, § 1009(e), defines the scope of judicial review, and after setting forth the grounds therefor, included in which are the grounds of arbitrariness, capriciousness, etc., states the following:
"In making the foregoing determinations i. e., whether the administrative action was, for example, arbitrary or capricious the court shall review the whole record or such portions thereof as may be cited by any party, and due account shall be taken of the rule of prejudicial error." (Emphasis added.)
Construing this statute, and considering the applicable case law hereinafter cited, the conclusion is inescapable that the only admissible evidence which a district court could properly consider in a case such as this, is the record made during the administrative proceedings in the Department of the Interior, and the only question to be resolved is whether the decision of the Department of the Interior is supported by any evidence.
The section of the Administrative Procedure Act quoted above authorizes a review by the court, and inquiry as to the fairness of the hearing, and as to whether the order of the agency was supported by substantial evidence, but it does not authorize a trial de novo, which plaintiffs appear to be seeking in the present action.
In the case of Cameron v. United States, 252 U.S. 450, 40 S.Ct. 410, 414, 64 L.Ed. 659 (1920), the Supreme Court, in considering the action of the Land Department of the Department of the Interior, concerning certain lode mining locations, stated, on page 464, the following:
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Coleman v. United States
...Circuit, that although the Administrative Procedure Act does not permit a trial de novo of administrative decisions, Noren v. Beck, 199 F.Supp. 708 (D.C. S.D.Cal.1961); Adams v. United States, 318 F.2d 861 (9 CCA 1963), it does authorize and require judicial review under the standards of th......
-
Sierra Club v. Hardin
...a decision based upon substantial evidence even if it would have reached a different decision were the trial de novo. 32 Noren v. Beck, 199 F.Supp. 708 (S.D. Cal.1961), in which the court limited the scope of review to the departmental record, despite the plaintiff's protestations that no f......
-
Community National Bank of Pontiac v. Saxon, 14876.
...Altmeyer, 137 F.2d 531 (C.A. 2). See, also, United States v. Shimer, 367 U.S. 374, 381-382, 81 S.Ct. 1554, 6 L.Ed.2d 908; Noren v. Beck, 199 F.Supp. 708 (S.D.Cal.). The District Court found and concluded, after an extensive hearing of evidence and a consideration of the applicable Michigan ......
-
Attocknie v. Udall
...States, 252 U.S. 450, 40 S.Ct. 410, 64 L.Ed. 659 (1920); Foster v. Seaton, 106 U.S.App.D.C. 253, 271 F.2d 836 (1959); Noren v. Beck, 199 F.Supp. 708 (S.D.Cal.1961). Therefore, the function of this Court is limited to a review of the administrative record relating to the approval of the dece......