Pittston Coal Co. v. Babbitt, No. 92-1606
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (4th Circuit) |
| Writing for the Court | Before RUSSELL, WILKINS, and HAMILTON; HAMILTON |
| Citation | 66 F.3d 714 |
| Docket Number | No. 92-1606 |
| Decision Date | 06 October 1995 |
| Parties | PITTSTON COAL COMPANY; Clinchfield Coal Company, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Bruce BABBITT, 1 Secretary, Department of The Interior; Commonwealth of Virginia, Department of Mines, Minerals & Energy, Division of Mine Land Reclamation, Defendants-Appellees. |
Page 714
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
Bruce BABBITT, 1 Secretary, Department of The
Interior; Commonwealth of Virginia, Department of
Mines, Minerals & Energy, Division of
Mine Land Reclamation,
Defendants-Appellees.
Fourth Circuit.
Decided Oct. 6, 1995.
Page 715
ARGUED: Wade Wallihan Massie, Penn, Stuart, Eskridge & Jones, Abingdon, Virginia, for Appellants. Katherine Leatherman Adams, Environment and Natural Resources Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Appellees. ON BRIEF: Stephen M. Hodges, Penn, Stuart, Eskridge & Jones, Abingdon, Virginia; John R. Woodrum, Smith, Heenan & Althen, Washington, D.C., for Appellants. Vicki A. O'Meara, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Dirk D. Snel, Environment and Natural Resources Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C.; Charles Gault, United States Department of the Interior, Knoxville, Tennessee; Richard H. McNeer, Office of the Solicitor, United States Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C.; Zane B. Scott, Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, Big Stone Gap, Virginia, for Appellees.
Before RUSSELL, WILKINS, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by published opinion. Judge HAMILTON wrote the opinion, in which Judge RUSSELL and Judge WILKINS joined.
HAMILTON, Circuit Judge:
Appellants Pittston Company (Pittston) and Clinchfield Coal Company (Clinchfield) brought this action asserting that the proposed denial of their applications for mining permits violated their procedural due process rights. Appellees Bruce Babbitt, Secretary of the Interior, and the Commonwealth of Virginia moved to dismiss the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1). The district court granted the motion, holding that, pursuant to 30 U.S.C Sec. 1276(a)(1), the case could only be brought in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. Pittston Co. v. Lujan, 798 F.Supp. 344, 353 (W.D.Va.1992). Pittston and Clinchfield appeal.
We have carefully examined the record, briefs, arguments of the parties, and the opinion of the district court. We agree with the district court that it did not have subject matter jurisdiction under 30 U.S.C. Sec. 1276(a)(1). Therefore, we affirm on the compelling reasoning of the district court. 2
AFFIRMED.
---------------
1 Substituted for former...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
West Virginia Div. of Environmental Protection v. Kingwood Coal Co., No. 23876
...manner in which the surface mining operation is conducted. Id. See generally Pittston Co. v. Lujan, 798 F.Supp. 344 (W.D.Va.1992), aff'd, 66 F.3d 714 (4th Cir.1995), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 116 S.Ct. 1417, 134 L.Ed.2d 542 (1996). The burden of persuasion then shifts "to the persons mor......
-
Arch Mineral Corp. v. Babbitt, No. 95-2793
...F.2d at 799). Again, only the District of Columbia federal district court had jurisdiction. Finally, in Pittston Coal Company v. Babbitt, 66 F.3d 714 (4th Cir.1995), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 116 S.Ct. 1417, 134 L.Ed.2d 542 (1996), the coal company challenged, on procedural due process g......
-
Ballmer v. Babbitt, Civil Action No. 2:96-0010.
...provision establishes exclusive subject matter jurisdiction for challenges to national rules under SMCRA. Pittston Coal Co. v. Babbitt, 66 F.3d 714, 715 (4th Cir.1995), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 116 S.Ct. 1417, 134 L.Ed.2d 542 (1996); Clinchfield Coal Co. v. Department of the Interior, 80......
-
West Virginia Div. of Environmental Protection v. Kingwood Coal Co., No. 23876
...manner in which the surface mining operation is conducted. Id. See generally Pittston Co. v. Lujan, 798 F.Supp. 344 (W.D.Va.1992), aff'd, 66 F.3d 714 (4th Cir.1995), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 116 S.Ct. 1417, 134 L.Ed.2d 542 (1996). The burden of persuasion then shifts "to the persons mor......
-
Arch Mineral Corp. v. Babbitt, No. 95-2793
...F.2d at 799). Again, only the District of Columbia federal district court had jurisdiction. Finally, in Pittston Coal Company v. Babbitt, 66 F.3d 714 (4th Cir.1995), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 116 S.Ct. 1417, 134 L.Ed.2d 542 (1996), the coal company challenged, on procedural due process g......
-
Ballmer v. Babbitt, Civil Action No. 2:96-0010.
...provision establishes exclusive subject matter jurisdiction for challenges to national rules under SMCRA. Pittston Coal Co. v. Babbitt, 66 F.3d 714, 715 (4th Cir.1995), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 116 S.Ct. 1417, 134 L.Ed.2d 542 (1996); Clinchfield Coal Co. v. Department of the Interior, 80......