Sims v. Ellis

• Decision Date: 16 September 2013
• Docket Number: Case No. 1:12–CV–00505–EJL.
• Citation: 972 F.Supp.2d 1196
• Parties: Sandy Howard SIMS, Plaintiff, v. Steven ELLIS, in his official capacity as the Director of the Idaho State Office of the United States Bureau of Land Management, Mike Pool, in his official capacity as the Acting Director of the United States Bureau of Land Management and Ken Salazar, in his official capacity of Secretary of the United States Department of Interior, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Idaho

972 F.Supp.2d 1196

Sandy Howard SIMS, Plaintiff,

v.Steven ELLIS, in his official capacity as the Director of the Idaho State Office of the United States Bureau of Land Management, Mike Pool, in his official capacity as the Acting Director of the United States Bureau of Land Management and Ken Salazar, in his official capacity of Secretary of the United States Department of Interior, Defendants.

Case No. 1:12–CV–00505–EJL.

United States District Court,

D. Idaho.

Sept. 16, 2013.

Barry L. Marcus, Michael R. Christian, Marcus Christian Hardee & Davies LLP, Boise, ID, for Plaintiff.

Nicholas J. Woychick, US Attorney's Office, Boise, ID, for Defendants.

MEMORANDUM ORDER

EDWARD J. LODGE, District Judge.

Plaintiff Sandy Howard Sims (“Plaintiff” or “Sims”) owns an operating mine known as the “Democrat Mine” conducted on patented lode mining claims located in the Salmon–Challis National Forest. (Dkt. 1, ¶ 3.) On or about June 5, 1992, Plaintiff filed an application to patent seven mill site claims associated with his use of the Democrat Mine. ( Id., ¶¶ 4, 8.) Plaintiff brings this action for review under the Administrative Procedures Act (“APA”), 5 U.S.C. § 706, and/or writ of mandamus, 28 U.S.C. § 1361, of Defendants' processing of his mill site patent application. Plaintiff names as defendants Steven Ellis, Mike Pool and Ken Salazar, each in their official capacities within the Bureau of Land Management (“BLM”) and/or the Department of Interior (“DOI”). Pending before this Court are Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. 5), and Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. 12).

Having fully reviewed the record, the Court finds that the facts and legal arguments are adequately presented in the briefs and record. Accordingly, in the interest of avoiding further delay, and because the Court conclusively finds that the decisional process would not be significantly aided by oral argument, this matter shall be decided on the record before this Court without oral argument. For the reasons explained below, Plaintiff's motion is granted in part and denied in part, and Defendants' motion is denied.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND¹

Plaintiff is the owner of the Democrat Mine and is the general manager of its operations. On May 11, 1990, Sims located the following named and identified mill sites ²: Rosebud (IMC 159358); Alex Stephens (IMC 159359); McClellen (IMC 159360); McKinley (IMC 159361); Glendale (IMC 159362); Fairview (IMC 159363); and Jumbo (IMC 159364) (collectively referred to hereinafter as the “Mill Sites”). Sims has continuously maintained, occupied, possessed and used the Mill Sites in connection with mining and development of the Democrat Mine. On or about June 5, 1992, Sims filed an application with the BLM to patent the Mill Sites pursuant to 43 U.S.C. §§ 29 and 42. Plaintiff's Mill Sites patent application is identified as IDI–29284 (hereinafter the “Application.”)

The BLM adjudicated the Application and no party, including the BLM, initially contested the issuance of the patent or filed an adverse claim. (Dkt. 13, ¶ 3.) The BLM sent the Application to the Secretary of Interior for execution of a First Half Final Certificate on July 12, 1993. ( Id., ¶ 4) Sims paid the statutory purchase price for the Mill Sites in March, 1993. ( Id., ¶ 5.) The BLM accepted Sims' payment without reservation. ( Id.) The Secretary of the Interior signed the First Half Final Certificate in June, 1995. ( Id., ¶ 6.) In 1998 and 1999, a DOI mineral examiner examined the Mill Sites on several occasions. BLM records pertaining to the Application suggest that the mineral examiner prepared a mineral report in June 2000, which presumably addressed Sims' use and occupancy of the Mill Sites. However, Sims alleges the BLM never provided him with a copy of the mineral examination report.

On June 20, 2000, the BLM filed a contest proceeding (“Contest”) with the DOI, alleging that the Mill Sites were not used or occupied for purposes reasonably related to operation of the Democrat Mine, and requesting that the Mill Sites be declared null and void. The parties filed a stipulation on July 18, 2002 to stay the administrative proceedings pending negotiations between Sims and the Forest Service to explore a land exchange. (Dkt. 5–1, p. 1.) Periodic reports were submitted to the Administrative Law Judge (“AJL”) thereafter through early 2006, indicating negotiations had not yet concluded. ( Id., p. 2.) On May 25, 2006, the AJL issued an Order to Show Cause and Notice of Intent to Dismiss without Prejudice. ( Id.) On June 13, 2006, the parties filed a Joint Stipulation to Dismiss the Contest without Prejudice, which resulted in entry of an Order Dismissing the Proceeding without Prejudice on June 21, 2006. (Dkt. 1–4.) The AJL's Dismissal Order provided, “[t]he parties have been negotiating a land swap for the last several years that should resolve this contest. In the event that ongoing settlement negotiations are not concluded successfully, the parties have agreed, consistent with established mining contest law and procedure, that this contest can then be re-filed by the Contestant.” (Dkt. 1–4.)

Following dismissal of the Contest on June 21, 2006, the BLM has not taken any action regarding the Application, and has not filed a subsequent contest. The BLM suggests it was unaware that Sims' negotiations with the Forest Service for a land swap were unsuccessful until Sims filed the instant suit.³ (Dkt. 5–1, p. 3.) However, Sims suggests the BLM is barred from any further action for forfeiture of his title to the Mill Sites under 28 U.S.C. § 2462 because more than five years have passed since the BLM consented to dismissal of the Contest action. (Dkt. 9, p. 11.)

Sims filed the instant suit on October 2, 2012, under the General Mining Law of 1872, 30 U.S.C. § 21 et. seq., the APA, 5 U.S.C. § 701–706, Writ of Mandamus, 28 U.S.C. § 1361, and/or Statute of Limitations, 28 U.S.C. § 2462. Sims seeks judgment directing Defendants to immediately issue patent to the Mill Sites and enjoining Defendants from initiating any action or proceeding designed to cause a forfeiture of Sims' title to the Mill Sites.

Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim on December 14, 2012. (Dkt. 5.) While Defendants' Motion to Dismiss was pending, Sims filed a Motion for Summary Judgment. (Dkt. 12.) Defendants thereafter requested that the Court extend the deadline for responding to Sims' Motion for Summary Judgment until twenty-one days after the Court's ruling on Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. (Dkt. 18.) The Court determined it would be more efficient to consider the Motion to Dismiss in conjunction with Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment, and denied Defendants' request. (Dkt. 20.) Defendants' Motion to Dismiss and Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment have been fully briefed and are now ripe for review.

ANALYSIS

Sims seeks an order from this Court finding that, because the BLM failed to comply with its obligation to contest Sims' patent application within a reasonable time, it forfeited its right to do so, and directing the BLM to immediately issue patent to Sims for the Mill Sites. Defendants contend that the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction under the APA because there has been no final agency decision from which Sims can seek judicial review; that because the Contest action was dismissed without prejudice at the request of Sims, who sought to negotiate a land exchange with the Forest Service, Sims, and not the government, delayed resolution of the patenting process; that the Secretary of the Interior's power to determine the validity of patent rights does not cease until legal title has passed, after the issuance of a patent; and that only the Secretary of the Interior, and not the court, has the authority to issue patents.

1. Mining Law and the Patent Application Process

Under the General Mining Law of 1872, 30 U.S.C. §§ 22–54 (“Mining Act”), an individual may enter and explore public lands in search of valuable minerals. 30 U.S.C. § 22. If valuable minerals are discovered, the claimant may file a mining claim for a lode or placer claim, as well as a claim for a nearby mill site. Swanson v. Babbitt, 3 F.3d 1348, 1350 (9th Cir.1993). Possessory interest “in a claim can be held indefinitely upon discovery of valuable mineral deposits provided that annual assessment work is performed, all necessary filings and fee payments are made, and the valuable mineral continues to exist.” R.T. Vanderbilt Co. v. Babbitt, 113 F.3d 1061, 1063 (9th Cir.1997) (citation omitted). However, if a mining claimant has an unpatented mining claim, fee title and ownership of the land remains with the United States. Independence Mining Co. v. Babbitt, 105 F.3d 502, 506 (9th Cir.1997). To obtain fee title to the land, a claimant possessing a valid mining claim may apply for a patent.⁴Swanson, 3 F.3d at 1350. “While not required, a claimant who possesses a valid mining claim may go through the application process to obtain a patent, thereby purchasing the land and minerals from the United States and obtaining ultimate title to them.” Byrd v. Jossie, 2009 WL 348733, *5 (D.Or.2009) ( citing Swanson, 3 F.3d at 1350;Independence Mining, 105 F.3d at 506).

The patent application process is governed by the Mining Act. After an applicant files a patent application and pays the purchase price, the Secretary of the Interior issues a “First Half of mineral entry Final Certificate,” (hereinafter “FHFC”) which represents the DOI's administrative recording of the applicant's compliance with the initial paperwork required under the Mining Act. Independence Mining, 105 F.3d at 506. However, a patent is not issued until the DOI has determined that the claim is valid. Id. To determine whether a claim is valid, “a mineral examiner must do a field examination; collect and analyze samples; estimate the value of the mineral deposit and the cost of...