The United States of America v. The State of Alaska et al

Filing 154

ORDER granting in part Intervenor-Plaintiffs' motions for attorney's fees at Dockets 133 , 135 , 137 , and 138 insofar as the Court finds that Intervenor-Plaintiffs may seek attorneys fees pursuant to 16 U.S.C. § 3117 at the conclusion of this litigation. Signed by Judge Sharon L. Gleason on 6/6/2024. (JDS, COURT STAFF)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
and
KUSKOKWIM RIVER INTER-TRIBAL
FISH COMMISSION, et al.,

Case No. 1:22-cv-00054-SLG

Intervenor-Plaintiffs
v.
THE STATE OF ALASKA, et al.,
Defendants.
ORDER RE INTERVENOR-PLAINTIFFS’ MOTIONS FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES
Before the Court are Intervenor-Plaintiffs’ motions for attorney’s fees at
Dockets 133, 135, 137, and 138. 1 The Court previously denied the motions without
prejudice in part as to the amount of any fee award, but directed Defendants 2 to
respond to the motions on whether Intervenor-Plaintiffs can seek attorney’s fees
pursuant to 16 U.S.C. § 3117. 3 Defendants filed their response at Docket 151.

Intervenor-Plaintiffs are Kuskokwim River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission (“the Commission”),
see Docket 29; the Association of Village Council Presidents, Betty Magnuson, and Ivan Ivan
(collectively, “AVCP”), see Docket 37; Ahtna Tene Nené and Ahtna, Inc. (collectively, “Ahtna”),
see Docket 47; and Alaska Federation of Natives (“AFN”), see Docket 96.

1

Defendants are the State of Alaska, the Alaska Department of Fish and Game (“ADF&G”), and
Doug Vincent-Lang, Commissioner of ADF&G (collectively, “the State” or “Defendants”). Docket
1 at ¶¶ 9-11.

2

3

Docket 150 at 6-7.

Intervenor-Plaintiffs AFN, the Commission, and AVCP replied at Docket 152, and
Intervenor-Plaintiff Ahtna replied at Docket 153. Oral argument was not requested
and is not necessary to the Court’s determination.
BACKGROUND
The facts of this case are more fully set out in the Court’s prior order at
Docket 129. As relevant, the United States sued Defendants after Defendants
opened fishing on the Kuskokwim River in conflict with federal orders prohibiting
such fishing. 4

The United States maintained that the State’s actions were

preempted by federal law, specifically Title VIII of the Alaska National Interest
Lands Conservation Act (“ANILCA”). 5 In response, the State asserted that the
Federal Subsistence Board, the entity that issued the federal orders, did not have
the authority to regulate fishing on the Kuskokwim River and was unconstitutional
pursuant to the Appointments Clause. 6
The Court rejected Defendants’ arguments and granted summary judgment
to the United States and Intervenor-Plaintiffs. 7 The Court entered a permanent
injunction prohibiting the State from reinstating its orders that conflicted with the
federal orders and from taking similar actions interfering with federal orders issued

4

Docket 1 at ¶¶ 4-6.

Docket 1 at ¶¶ 1-2 (citing Pub. L. No. 96-487, 94 Stat. 2371, 2371-2551 (1980) (codified at 16
U.S.C. §§ 3111-3126)).

5

6

Docket 73 at 8-9.

7

Docket 129 at 27.

Case No. 1:22-cv-00054-SLG, USA v. SOA
Order re Intervenor-Plaintiffs’ Motions for Attorney’s Fees
Page 2 of 10

pursuant to Title VIII of ANILCA on the Kuskokwim River within the Yukon Delta
National Wildlife Refuge. 8
The State has timely appealed from the Court’s order. 9 Shortly thereafter,
Intervenor-Plaintiffs filed motions for attorney’s fees pursuant to 16 U.S.C. § 3117,
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d)(2), and District of Alaska Local Civil Rule
54.2. 10
LEGAL STANDARD
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d)(2) allows a party to seek attorney’s
fees by filing a motion within fourteen days of the entry of judgment. The motion
must specify the grounds entitling the movant to the award and the amount sought
or a fair estimate. 11
DISCUSSION
In their motions, Intervenor-Plaintiffs maintain that they are entitled to
attorney’s fees as prevailing parties pursuant to 16 U.S.C. § 3117 because the
Court rejected Defendants’ challenges to the Federal Subsistence Board’s
authority and entered summary judgment in favor of the United States and
Intervenor-Plaintiffs. 12

8

Docket 129 at 29.

9

Docket 131.

10

Docket 133 (AFN); Docket 135 (Commission); Docket 137 (Ahtna); Docket 138 (AVCP).

11

Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d). See also Alaska L. Civ. R. 54.2.

12

Docker 133 at 2 (AFN); Docket 135 at 2 (Commission); Docket 137 at 4 (Ahtna); Docket 138

Case No. 1:22-cv-00054-SLG, USA v. SOA
Order re Intervenor-Plaintiffs’ Motions for Attorney’s Fees
Page 3 of 10

Title VIII of ANILCA is codified at 16 U.S.C. §§ 3111-3126. Specifically,
Section 807 of ANILCA is codified at § 3117, and Section 804 of ANILCA is codified
at § 3114. Section 3117(c) provides “the sole Federal judicial remedy created by
[Title VIII] for local residents and other residents who, and organizations which, are
aggrieved by a failure of the State to provide for the priority of subsistence uses
set forth in [16 U.S.C. § 3114].” 13 Section 3117(a) provides that “[i]n a civil action
filed against the State, the court shall provide relief, other than preliminary relief,
by directing the State to submit regulations which satisfy the requirements of . . .
[16 U.S.C. § 3114].” In turn, § 3114 provides a priority for the subsistence taking
of fish and wildlife by rural Alaskans. Section 3117(a) also provides that “[l]ocal
residents and other persons and organizations who are prevailing parties in an
action filed pursuant to this section shall be awarded their costs and attorney’s
fees.”
Defendants disagree that Intervenor-Plaintiffs are entitled to attorney’s fees
pursuant to § 3117. 14

First, they maintain that Intervenor-Plaintiffs are not

“prevailing parties in an action filed pursuant to” § 3117 because the “action” was

at 4-6 (AVCP).
The legislative history explains that Section 807 of ANILCA was redrafted to “provide a
comprehensive mechanism for resolution of subsistence-related disputes.” 126 Cong. Rec.
31110 (1980). It was described broadly by its drafters as “the sole Federal judicial remedy for
any aggrieved local resident, person, or organization which believes that the State of Alaska has
failed, in a particular instance, to timely and adequately provide for the priority for subsistence
uses established by section 804.” Id.

13

14

Docket 151 at 2.

Case No. 1:22-cv-00054-SLG, USA v. SOA
Order re Intervenor-Plaintiffs’ Motions for Attorney’s Fees
Page 4 of 10

filed by the United States, and Intervenor-Plaintiffs “intervened in the United States’
action.” 15 Second, Defendants contend that the action filed by the United States
was not brought pursuant to § 3117 and “[n]ot once did any Intervenor ever claim
that it was filing its action ‘pursuant to’ Section 3117.” 16 Defendants also assert
that “there is no basis for assuming that the Intervenors’ claims were filed pursuant
to Section 3117” because the Court did not cite § 3117 in its orders, nor did the
Court direct the State to submit regulations to the Court that would satisfy Title
VIII’s rural subsistence priority. 17
In their replies, Intervenor-Plaintiffs assert that § 3117 provides the sole
federal remedy for local residents and other persons and organizations to resolve
disputes pursuant to Title VIII of ANILCA and that the text of the statute and the
congressional record demonstrate that the remedy applies to “all subsistencerelated disputes,” not just disputes implicating state regulations. 18

They also

maintain that, in addition to incorporating the United States’ complaint, IntervenorPlaintiffs’ complaints “sought relief because the . . . ‘State’s further attempts to . . .
invalidate Title VIII of ANILCA threaten the entire statewide population of Alaska

15

Docket 151 at 2-3 (emphasis in original) (internal quotation marks omitted).

16

Docket 151 at 3 (emphasis in original).

17

Docket 151 at 4.

Docket 152 at 3-4 (citing 16 U.S.C. § 3117(c)). The reply at Docket 152 was filed by
Intervenor-Plaintiffs AFN, the Commission, and AVCP. Ahtna filed a separate reply “agree[ing]
with the other Intervenor-Plaintiffs’ arguments,” but Ahtna wrote “separately to emphasize that
this case is, and has always been, about Katie John.” Docket 153 at 2.

18

Case No. 1:22-cv-00054-SLG, USA v. SOA
Order re Intervenor-Plaintiffs’ Motions for Attorney’s Fees
Page 5 of 10

Natives and their ways of life.’” 19

Further, each complaint in intervention

specifically requested an award of fees and costs. 20

Therefore, Intervenor-

Plaintiffs argue that “Defendants were on notice both that Intervenors sought relief
due to their statuses as organizations and residents aggrieved by the State
Defendants’ actions in contravention of the subsistence priority established in Title
VIII of ANILCA, and further that Intervenors were seeking attorneys’ fees,” and
Intervenor-Plaintiffs did not need “to specifically cite to [§ 3117] in their request for
fees and costs in their complaint to be entitled to a fee award, especially where
[§ 3117] is the sole remedy to enforce the subsistence priority.” 21
First, the Court finds no merit to Defendants’ assertion that IntervenorPlaintiffs cannot avail themselves of § 3117 because they, as intervenors, cannot
be prevailing parties pursuant to that section. Defendants point to no Ninth Circuit
authority in support of that proposition; rather, Defendants cite Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 24(a), which permits intervention of right. 22 However, “[i]Intervenors
under [Rule] 24(a)(2) . . . enter the suit with the status of original parties.” 23 Ninth
Circuit precedent suggests that a party’s status as an intervenor does not
Docket 152 at 5-6 (quoting Docket 97 at ¶ 12). See Docket 12-1 at ¶¶ 11, 14 (Commission
Compl.); Docket 38-1 at ¶¶ 1, 10, 13 (Ahtna Compl.); Docket 41 at ¶¶ 6-10 (AVCP Compl.);
Docket 97 at ¶¶ 1, 6-12 (AFN Compl.).

19

Docket 12-1 at 7 (Commission); Docket 38-1 at 7 (Ahtna); Docket 41 at 5 (AVCP); Docket 97
at 7 (AFN).

20

21

Docket 152 at 6-7.

22

Docket 151 at 3 & n.5.

23

United States v. Oregon, 657 F.2d 1009, 1014 (9th Cir. 1981) (citation omitted).

Case No. 1:22-cv-00054-SLG, USA v. SOA
Order re Intervenor-Plaintiffs’ Motions for Attorney’s Fees
Page 6 of 10

categorically bar the recovery of attorney’s fees. 24 And the Court in fact entered
judgment in this matter for both the United States and Intervenor-Plaintiffs. 25
Regarding Defendants’ second argument that Intervenor-Plaintiffs cannot
avail themselves of § 3117 because neither the United States’ complaint nor the
Intervenor-Plaintiffs’ complaints cite to § 3117, the Court finds that contention also
fails. “A party need not plead specific legal theories in the complaint, so long as
the other side receives notice as to what is at issue in the case.” 26 The Ninth Circuit
“long ago rejected the argument that a specific statute must be named, describing
it as an attempt to evoke wholly outmoded technical pleading rules.” 27
Here, the complaints expressly invoked Title VIII’s subsistence priority as a
basis for the action. 28 The United States’ complaint alleges that Defendants’
“actions conflict with ANILCA Title VIII and federal regulations.” 29 IntervenorPlaintiffs’ complaints each expressly invoked Title VIII and asserted that

See Democratic Party of Wash. State v. Reed, 388 F.3d 1281, 1284, 1288 (9th Cir. 2004)
(awarding attorney’s fees on appeal to intervening plaintiffs Republican and Libertarian Parties
in suit brought by Democratic Party against Secretary of State of Washington pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1983).

24

25

Docket 130 at 1.

Sagana v. Tenorio, 384 F.3d 731, 736-37 (9th Cir. 2004) (citations omitted). See also Cabrera
v. Martin, 973 F.2d 735, 745 (9th Cir. 1992) (stating that pleading facts underlying a § 1983
claim without naming the actual statute is sufficient).
26

27

Sagana, 384 F.3d at 737 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

Docket 1 at ¶¶ 2, 5-6, 16-17 (United States’ Compl.); Docket 12-1 at ¶¶ 11, 14 (Commission
Compl.); Docket 38-1 at ¶¶ 1, 10, 13 (Ahtna’s Compl.); Docket 41 at ¶¶ 6-10 (AVCP’s Compl.);
Docket 97 at ¶¶ 1, 6-12 (AFN’s Compl.).

28

29

Docket 1 at ¶ 6.

Case No. 1:22-cv-00054-SLG, USA v. SOA
Order re Intervenor-Plaintiffs’ Motions for Attorney’s Fees
Page 7 of 10

Defendants’ actions undermined the rural subsistence priority in contravention of
ANILCA. 30 Each complaint filed by the Intervenor-Plaintiffs also sought fees.31
Defendants were therefore on notice about the issues in this case, specifically that
the United States and Intervenor-Plaintiffs alleged that Defendants’ conduct
violated Title VIII of ANILCA and that Intervenor-Plaintiffs sought fees in their
complaints brought under ANILCA.
Defendants also suggest that, because the Court did not order Defendants
to submit regulations to comply with Title VIII in this case, Intervenor-Plaintiffs are
ineligible for attorney’s fees under §3117. 32 But the legislative history of ANILCA
demonstrates that relief under § 3117 is not limited solely to cases in which a court
orders the State to submit ANILCA-compliant regulations:
As a practical matter, the State’s responsibilities under section 804
will be focused primarily on ensuring that hunting and fishing
regulations adopted by the Alaska Board of Game and the Alaska
Board of Fisheries are in compliance with the requirements of the
section. If a board adopts regulations which are not in compliance
with the section, or if a board fails to adopt regulations necessary to
ensure the timely and adequate implementation of the subsistence
priority, local residents and other aggrieved persons and
organizations are empowered to seek a Federal court order to compel
the board to conform its actions to the requirements of section 804.
However, it also should be noted that actions of the Alaska
Department of Fish and Game and other State agencies and officials
may also give rise to a cause of action under section 804 which may
Docket 12-1 at ¶¶ 11, 14 (Commission Compl.); Docket 38-1 at ¶¶ 1, 10, 13 (Ahtna’s Compl.);
Docket 41 at ¶¶ 6-10 (AVCP’s Compl.); Docket 97 at ¶¶ 1, 6-12 (AFN’s Compl.).

30

Docket 12-1 at 7 (Commission); Docket 38-1 at 7 (Ahtna); Docket 41 at 5 (AVCP); Docket 97
at 7 (AFN).

31

32

See Docket 151 at 4-5.

Case No. 1:22-cv-00054-SLG, USA v. SOA
Order re Intervenor-Plaintiffs’ Motions for Attorney’s Fees
Page 8 of 10

be brought in the Federal court pursuant to the provisions of section
807. 33
Further, the Alaska Supreme Court in McDowell v. Alaska “struck down the
state act granting the rural subsistence preference as contrary to the Alaska state
constitution.” 34 To this day, the relevant provisions of Alaska’s Constitution remain
the same, and so a rural subsistence preference remains unconstitutional under
Alaska law. 35 Reading § 3117 as applying only when a court orders the State to
submit ANILCA-compliant regulations would produce the absurd result “that
aggrieved persons and organizations effectively have no recourse against the
State when it interferes with the implementation of ANILCA’s subsistence priority
because the State has no ability to promulgate regulations that comply with Title
VIII under current Alaska law.” 36 Further, as the Ninth Circuit has noted, “the
ANILCA

legislative

history

evidences

Congress’s

awareness

of

the

impoverishment of many people who depend on rural subsistence fishing and an
intent to provide them with both judicial and regulatory venues to vindicate their
subsistence rights.” 37 Clearly, Congress intended to provide a comprehensive

33

126 Cong. Rec. 31109 (1980) (emphasis added).

Alaska v. Babbitt, 72 F.3d 698, 701 (9th Cir. 1995) (citing McDowell v. Alaska, 785 P.2d 1
(Alaska 1989)).

34

35

Id.

36

Docket 152 at 5.

Native Vill. of Quinhagak v. United States, 307 F.3d 1075, 1083 (9th Cir. 2002) (citation
omitted).

37

Case No. 1:22-cv-00054-SLG, USA v. SOA
Order re Intervenor-Plaintiffs’ Motions for Attorney’s Fees
Page 9 of 10

remedy in § 3117 for all claims by persons and organizations against the State or
Federal governments arising under Title VIII of ANILCA. 38
Therefore, the Court GRANTS in part Intervenor-Plaintiffs’ motions for
attorney’s fees at Dockets 133, 135, 137, and 138 insofar as the Court finds that
Intervenor-Plaintiffs may seek attorney’s fees pursuant to 16 U.S.C. § 3117 at the
conclusion of this litigation.
DATED this 6th day of June 2024, at Anchorage, Alaska.
/s/ Sharon L. Gleason
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

38

See supra note 13.

Case No. 1:22-cv-00054-SLG, USA v. SOA
Order re Intervenor-Plaintiffs’ Motions for Attorney’s Fees
Page 10 of 10