Southwest Williamson County Community Ass'n, Inc. v. Slater, No. 97-6526

CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (6th Circuit)
Writing for the CourtMOORE
Citation173 F.3d 1033
PartiesSOUTHWEST WILLIAMSON COUNTY COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Rodney E. SLATER et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Docket NumberNo. 97-6526
Decision Date28 April 1999

Page 1033

173 F.3d 1033
SOUTHWEST WILLIAMSON COUNTY COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION, INC.,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
Rodney E. SLATER et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 97-6526.
United States Court of Appeals,
Sixth Circuit.
Argued Dec. 11, 1998.
Decided April 28, 1999.

Page 1034

Joe W. McCaleb (argued and briefed), Hendersonville, Tennessee, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Ellen D. Katz (argued and briefed), U.S. Department of Justice, Land & Natural Resources Division, Washington, D.C., Michael L. Roden, Asst. U.S. Atty., Nashville, Tennessee, for Defendant-Appellee Rodney E. Slater.

Michael L. Roden, Asst. U.S. Atty., Nashville, Tennessee, for Defendants-Appellees Jane F. Garvey, James Scapellato.

Michael W. Catalano (argued and briefed), Associate Solicitor General, Nashville, Tennessee, for Defendant-Appellee John Bruce Saltsman, Sr.

Before: BOGGS and MOORE, Circuit Judges; DOWD, * District Judge.

OPINION

MOORE, Circuit Judge.

Plaintiff Southwest Williamson County Community Association ("Association") appeals the dismissal of its several claims by the district court. The complaint centers upon the construction of a highway in Tennessee. The Association complains of a failure to comply with certain provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act ("NEPA") and the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act ("ISTEA") on the part of the state and federal defendants, and seeks injunctive and declaratory relief pending compliance with these statutes.

The district court dismissed the plaintiff's first two causes of action under NEPA as barred by the applicable statute of limitations, the third under ISTEA because the statute provides no private right of action, and the fourth, a state claim, because all federal claims had been dismissed. For the reasons discussed below, we affirm in part, vacate in part, and remand for development of two of the claims.

I. JURISDICTION

The district court had jurisdiction of this case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1361, 1367, 2201-2202, and 5 U.S.C. §§ 701-706. This court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. The notice of appeal was filed within sixty days of the district court's denial of the plaintiff's Rule 59 motion, making it timely under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(1) because the United States is a party.

Page 1035

II. BACKGROUND

The cause of this controversy is the design and construction of Route 840-South in Tennessee. The Tennessee Department of Transportation ("TDOT") prepared three Environmental Assessments ("EA") at the beginning stages of the project: one EA involved two cloverleaf intersections with federal interstates; a second involved two other cloverleaf interchanges with interstates; and the third involved the length of the highway--approximately fifty-three miles--called the corridor. Environmental Assessments are a tool used by state and federal officials to assess preliminarily a construction project. When it is necessary to do so, the Federal Highway Administration ("FHWA") will evaluate the EA and either issue a Finding of No Significant Impact ("FONSI") or require an Environmental Impact Statement ("EIS"). For the two EAs involving the cloverleaf intersections, the FHWA issued FONSIs in 1989 and 1990.

The construction project was divided into three segments, one of which has been completed and two others of which are in various stages of construction. On April 10, 1997, TDOT held a design public hearing in Leipers Fork, Tennessee, and it was shortly after this meeting that the plaintiff Association incorporated. The Association filed the complaint at issue here on July 14, 1997, against a state official of TDOT and federal officials of the U.S. Department of Transportation and the FHWA. Both sets of defendants filed motions to dismiss. The plaintiff filed a motion for a preliminary injunction on August 7, 1997, which was opposed by both sets of defendants. On September 15, 1997, the district court issued a memorandum opinion granting the defendants' motions to dismiss. See Southwest Williamson County Community Ass'n v. Slater, 976 F.Supp. 1119 (M.D.Tenn.1997).

III. ANALYSIS

The Association's suit challenges the public hearing process and some documentation concerning the project that was prepared by the state and accepted by the FHWA in 1989 and 1990, and seeks declaratory and injunctive relief against both the federal and state defendants. These claims are based on NEPA, ISTEA, and a Tennessee statute. We address only the federal claims, which are brought pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act ("APA"). Because the district court decided on statute-of-limitations and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) grounds, the standard of review is de novo.

A. The State Defendants

This circuit has held that NEPA does not authorize a private right of action, Sierra Club v. Slater, 120 F.3d 623, 630 (6th Cir.1997), and the district court in Sierra Club found that ISTEA also does not authorize a private right of action. Sierra Club v. Pena, 915 F.Supp. 1381, 1390-91 (N.D.Ohio 1996). The district court's determination of the ISTEA issue in Sierra Club was not appealed by the plaintiff in that case and thus was not reviewed, Sierra Club v. Slater, 120 F.3d at 629, so this circuit has not definitively ruled on whether ISTEA creates a private right of action. However, the plaintiff Association before us does not take issue with the lack of a private right of action under either statute, and explicitly brings its claims pursuant to the APA, 5 U.S.C. §§ 701-706. Therefore, we need not, and do not, decide whether a private right of action exists under ISTEA.

The APA allows judicial review for persons "suffering legal wrong because of agency action, or adversely affected or aggrieved by agency action," and defines "agency" as "each authority of the Government of the United States...." 5 U.S.C. §§ 701(b)(1), 702. By its own terms, the APA does not apply to state agencies. This result is confirmed by case law. See, e.g., Resident Council of Allen Parkway Village v. HUD, 980 F.2d 1043, 1055 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 820, 114 S.Ct.

Page 1036

75, 126 L.Ed.2d 43 (1993); Gilliam v. Miller, 973 F.2d 760, 764 (9th Cir.1992); Clark Constr. Co. v. Pena, 930 F.Supp. 1470, 1475 (M.D.Ala.1996). Because TDOT is not an agency as defined by the APA, the federal actions against TDOT in the person of its commissioner should be dismissed on this ground, which is essentially "failure to state a claim upon which relief can...

To continue reading

Request your trial
54 practice notes
  • Black v. Van Sciver, No. 1:16-cv-00841-DAD-JLT
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. Eastern District of California
    • September 1, 2016
    ...§ 702. However, "[b]y its own terms, the APA does not apply to state agencies." Southwest Williamson Cty. Cmty. Ass'n, Inc. v. Slater, 173 F.3d 1033, 1035 (6th Cir.1999). See also Hunter v. Underwood, 362 F.3d 468, 477 (8th Cir. 2004) ("The APA does not grant federal courts jurisdiction to ......
  • Oregon Natural Desert v. Bureau of Land Management, No. 05-35931.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)
    • July 14, 2008
    ...EIS or the record of decision issued thereon constitute[ ] final agency action.'") (quoting Sw. Williamson County Cmty. Ass'n v. Slater, 173 F.3d 1033, 1036 (6th Cir.1999)); Sierra Club v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 446 F.3d 808, 815 (8th Cir.2006) (noting that "[t]he Supreme Court has s......
  • Or. NATURAL DESERT Ass'n v. BUREAU of LAND Mgmt., No. 05-35931.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)
    • August 31, 2010
    ...EIS or the record of decision issued thereon constitute[ ] final agency action.’ ”) (quoting Sw. Williamson County Cmty. Ass'n v. Slater, 173 F.3d 1033, 1036 (6th Cir.1999)); Sierra Club v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 446 F.3d 808, 815 (8th Cir.2006) (noting that “[t]he Supreme Court has ......
  • Friends of Tims Ford v. Tennessee Valley Authority, No. 08-5706.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (6th Circuit)
    • November 6, 2009
    ...governed by a six-year statute of limitations. Sierra Club, 120 F.3d at 631; see also Southwest Williamson County Cmty. Ass'n v. Slater, 173 F.3d 1033, 1036 (6th Cir.1999). The limitations period begins to run from the time of "final agency action." Southwest, 173 F.3d at 1036 (citing 5 U.S......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
54 cases
  • Black v. Van Sciver, No. 1:16-cv-00841-DAD-JLT
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. Eastern District of California
    • September 1, 2016
    ...§ 702. However, "[b]y its own terms, the APA does not apply to state agencies." Southwest Williamson Cty. Cmty. Ass'n, Inc. v. Slater, 173 F.3d 1033, 1035 (6th Cir.1999). See also Hunter v. Underwood, 362 F.3d 468, 477 (8th Cir. 2004) ("The APA does not grant federal courts jurisdiction to ......
  • Oregon Natural Desert v. Bureau of Land Management, No. 05-35931.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)
    • July 14, 2008
    ...EIS or the record of decision issued thereon constitute[ ] final agency action.'") (quoting Sw. Williamson County Cmty. Ass'n v. Slater, 173 F.3d 1033, 1036 (6th Cir.1999)); Sierra Club v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 446 F.3d 808, 815 (8th Cir.2006) (noting that "[t]he Supreme Court has s......
  • Or. NATURAL DESERT Ass'n v. BUREAU of LAND Mgmt., No. 05-35931.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)
    • August 31, 2010
    ...EIS or the record of decision issued thereon constitute[ ] final agency action.’ ”) (quoting Sw. Williamson County Cmty. Ass'n v. Slater, 173 F.3d 1033, 1036 (6th Cir.1999)); Sierra Club v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 446 F.3d 808, 815 (8th Cir.2006) (noting that “[t]he Supreme Court has ......
  • Friends of Tims Ford v. Tennessee Valley Authority, No. 08-5706.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (6th Circuit)
    • November 6, 2009
    ...governed by a six-year statute of limitations. Sierra Club, 120 F.3d at 631; see also Southwest Williamson County Cmty. Ass'n v. Slater, 173 F.3d 1033, 1036 (6th Cir.1999). The limitations period begins to run from the time of "final agency action." Southwest, 173 F.3d at 1036 (citing 5 U.S......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT