Norton v. Bureau of Indian Affairs, Civ. 92-016-E-EJL.
Decision Date | 20 July 1992 |
Docket Number | No. Civ. 92-016-E-EJL.,Civ. 92-016-E-EJL. |
Citation | 804 F. Supp. 1279 |
Parties | Jerry F. NORTON, Petitioner, v. BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS, Respondent. |
Court | U.S. District Court — District of Idaho |
Steven W. Shaw, Pocatello, Idaho, for petitioner.
Maurice O. Ellsworth, U.S. Atty., Boise, Idaho, for respondent.
This matter was heard on oral argument in Pocatello on July 13, 1992 with counsel for the parties appearing upon the United States' motion to dismiss, under Rule 12 for failure to state a claim and lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Petitioner had filed an action seeking a writ of mandamus against the Bureau of Indian Affairs regarding a low interest loan application to finance a business to be conducted on the Fort Hall Indian reservation.
Both parties have submitted documents from the petitioner's administrative appeals. Petitioner claims that a writ should issue because the agency has not made a decision. The documents fail to support that contention.
Norton initially filed an appeal dated March 13, 1991 (Exhibit "A" to the petition) which on its face is titled "Appeal to the Area Director." Because he sent the original of the appeal notice to Board of Indian Appeals in Arlington, Virginia, it docketed and entered an Order dismissing the appeal as premature, counseling petitioner and his attorney about the proper procedure to be followed:
On June 4, 1991 petitioner again filed a Notice of Appeal to "Appeal to the Area Director" and again sent a copy to the Board of Indian Appeals. The final sentence of paragraph 1. of the Notice reads: "The Fort Hall Agency has now denied said loan and appellant further appeals their improper denial."
The Board in 20 IBIA 78, (Exhibit "F" to petitioner's memorandum) dismissed this appeal as well, again stating that the procedure should have been filing an appeal with the Area Director:
June 14, 1991 the Portland Area Office sent its decision via certified mail to petitioner reciting in four numbered paragraphs the reasons the loan application was denied. (Exhibit "G" to petitioners memorandum) The last paragraph on the first page reads:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
City of Galt v. US
... ... No. Civ. S-92-0464-DFL-GGH ... United States District ... ...