Wieler v. U.S., A95-0421-CV (HRH).
| Decision Date | 20 January 2005 |
| Docket Number | No. A95-0421-CV (HRH).,A95-0421-CV (HRH). |
| Parties | Eric E. WIELER and Paul R. Wieler, Plaintiffs, v. UNITED STATES of America, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Alaska |
John Charles Ohman, New York, NY, for plaintiff.
Defendant United States moves the court to dismiss plaintiffs' action seeking review of the Interior Board of Land Appeals' ("IBLA") decision in Eric E. Wieler, et al., 160 IBLA 284 (Jan. 20, 2004).1 Plaintiffs Eric and Paul Wieler oppose the motion and cross-move for an order of summary judgment reversing the decision of the IBLA and remanding the proceeding to the Bureau of Land Management ("BLM").2 Oral argument was not requested and is not deemed necessary.
On June 21, 2001, BLM issued a contest complaint regarding Silver King unpatented lode mining claims nos. 16, 17, and 18. The complaint alleged in pertinent part:
There are not presently disclosed within the boundaries of the Silver King # 16, Silver King # 17, and Silver King # 18 lode mining claims minerals of a variety subject to the mining laws sufficient in quantity and quality to constitute a valid discovery and none were disclosed on March 15, 1972, when Public Land Order No. 5179 withdrew the lands from location and entry under the mining laws.3
The complaint, which was properly served on plaintiffs on June 23, 2001, stated that the allegations of the complaint would be taken as admitted and the case decided without a hearing if an answer were not filed within thirty days. Plaintiffs did not file an answer within thirty days.
On July 27, 2001, attorney Karen Bretz filed a notice of appearance and motion for enlargement of time to file an answer on behalf of plaintiffs. By decision dated August 6, 2001, BLM denied plaintiffs' motion for enlargement of time on the grounds that the motion was filed after the thirty-day time period set forth in 43 C.F.R. § 4.450-6 for filing an answer had expired. The decision stated that pursuant to 43 C.F.R. § 4.22(f)(2), BLM has no authority to grant an extension of time where the motion for enlargement is filed after the expiration of the allowable time for filing the answer.
The BLM decision further states:
Because the contestees failed to file an answer to the complaint within the 30-day time allowed by law, the allegations of the complaint are deemed to have been admitted under 43 CFR § 4.450-7. This includes the allegation that there are not presently disclosed within the boundaries of the subject claims minerals of a variety sufficient in quantity and quality to constitute a valid discovery, and none were disclosed on March 15, 1972 when Public Land Order No. 5179 withdrew the lands from location and entry under the mining laws. Because of the admitted absence of a valid discovery presently and on the March 15, 1972 withdrawal date, the subject mining claims are hereby declared NULL and VOID.4
Plaintiffs appealed the BLM decision to the IBLA. In the notice of appeal, plaintiffs' counsel averred that the failure to respond within thirty days was due to simple mistake, inadvertence and excusable neglect on her part.5 By decision dated January 20, 2004, the IBLA affirmed BLM's decision, stating in part:
Both the contest complaint and the applicable regulation, 43 CFR [§] 4.450-7(a), expressly advised claimants that the allegations of the complaint would be taken as admitted and the case would be decided without a hearing if an answer were not filed within 30 days as required. Appellants clearly failed to timely file an answer to the contest complaint, thus, the allegations made therein must be taken as admitted... Accordingly, BLM properly declared the claims null and void.6
On June 22, 2004, plaintiffs filed their third amended complaint,7 asserting two claims: a claim against the United States for the alleged taking of Silver King unpatented lode mining claims nos. 16, 17, and 18, and a claim for judicial review of the IBLA decision of January 20, 2004, which affirmed BLM's determination that plaintiffs' Silver King mining claims nos. 16, 17, and 18 are null and void.
On August 12, 2004, defendant United States filed its opening brief requesting the court to dismiss plaintiffs' claim for review of the IBLA's decision in Eric E. Wieler, et al., 160 IBLA 284 (Jan. 20, 2004).8 Defendant acknowledged that plaintiffs' complaint also alleges a taking claim, but argued that if the mining claims are null and void then plaintiffs' taking claim must also fail. On October 21, 2004, plaintiffs filed their motion "for summary judgment on the issue of whether the Interior Board of Land Appeals' decision was in error."9 Plaintiffs' motion does not address their taking claim.
Summary judgment "shall be rendered forthwith if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c).
Summary judgment is appropriate only when, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, there are no genuine issues of material fact with respect to the claims. Taybron v. City and County of San Francisco, 341 F.3d 957, 960 (9th Cir.2003). A dispute about a material fact is "genuine" if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986).
The moving party has the initial burden of showing the absence of a genuine issue of fact for trial. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 325, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986). If the moving party meets its initial burden, the non-moving party must go beyond the pleadings and "set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial." Id. at 325, 106 S.Ct. 2548; Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505.
In addition to showing that there are no questions of material fact, the moving party must also show that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Smith v. University of Washington, Law School, 233 F.3d 1188, 1193 (9th Cir.2000). The moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law when the nonmoving party fails to make a sufficient showing on an essential element of a claim on which the nonmoving party has the burden of proof. Celotex, 477 U.S. at 323, 106 S.Ct. 2548.
Relevant portions of the applicable regulations are set forth below:
43 C.F.R. § 4.450-6 Answer to complaint.
Within 30 days after service of the complaint or after the last publication of the notice, the contestee must file in the office where the contest is pending an answer specifically meeting and responding to the allegations of the complaint, together with proof of service of a copy of the answer upon a contestant as provided in § 4.450-5(b)(3) ...
43 C.F.R. § 4.450-7 Action by manager.
(a) If an answer is not filed as required, the allegations of the complaint will be taken as admitted by the contestee and the manager will decide the case without a hearing.
(b) If an answer is filed and unless all parties waive a hearing, the manager will refer the case to an administrative law judge upon determining that the elements of a private contest appear to have been established.
43 C.F.R. § 4.22(f) Extensions of time.
(1) The time for filing or serving any document may be extended by the Appeals Board or other officer before whom the proceeding is pending, except for the time for filing a notice of appeal and except where such extension is contrary to law or regulation.
(2) A request for an extension of time must be filed within the time allowed for the filing or serving of the document and must be filed in the same office in which the document in connection with which the extension is requested must be filed.
The Administrative Procedures Act ("APA"), 5 U.S.C. §§ 701-706, governs judicial review of final agency actions. Id. at § 702. In reviewing decisions of the IBLA, the district court exercises a limited standard of review, reversing the IBLA's decision "only if that decision is arbitrary, capricious, not supported by substantial evidence, or contrary to law." Hjelvik v. Babbitt, 198 F.3d 1072, 1074 (9th Cir.1999). To determine whether the IBLA's decision is supported by substantial evidence, "the court reviews the entire record to determine whether it contains `such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion,' and whether it demonstrates that the `decision was based on a consideration of the relevant factors.'" Id. (citations omitted). The court may not substitute its judgment for that of the agency. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. v. Hodel, 819 F.2d 927, 929 (9th Cir.1987).
In this matter, the following facts are undisputed: the contest complaint was properly served on plaintiffs and plainly stated that plaintiffs were required to file an answer within thirty days or all allegations in the complaint would be deemed as true and the case would be decided without a hearing; plaintiffs failed to file an answer within thirty days pursuant to 43 C.F.R. § 4.450-6; plaintiffs failed to file a request for enlargement of time to answer before the thirty-day period expired as required by 43 C.F.R. § 4.22(f)(2); and, the BLM deemed the allegations of the contest complaint to have been admitted under 43 C.F.R. § 4.450-7(a) and declared the mining claims at issue null and void.
In addition to accepting defendant's statement of facts regarding the agency proceedings in this matter, plaintiffs also agree that "the standard of review is whether the agency's decision was arbitrary, capricious or an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law."10 The parties disagree, however,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
McKown v. United States, Case No. 1:09–cv–00810–SKO.
...of the agency. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. v. Hodel, 819 F.2d 927, 929 (9th Cir.1987); see also Wieler v. United States, 364 F.Supp.2d 1057, 1061 (D.Alaska 2005).C. The IBLA's Decision is Supported by Law and Substantial Evidence and is Not Arbitrary and Capricious As noted abov......
-
McKown v. United States, CASE NO. 1:09-cv-00810-SKO
...of the agency. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. v. Hodel, 819 F.2d 927, 929 (9th Cir.1987); see also Wieler v. United States, 364 F. Supp. 2d 1057, 1061 (D. Alaska 2005).C. The IBLA's Decision is Supported by Law and Substantial Evidence and is Not Arbitrary and Capricious As noted a......