Wall v. United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service Northern Region One et al

Filing 37

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER re 8 MOTION to Dismiss or, in the Alternative, to Change Venue Plaintiff's Complaint. IT IS ORDERED that the Federal Defendants Motion to Dismiss or, in the Alternative, to Change Venue (Dkt. 8) is GRANTED IN PART. Specifically, the motion is granted to extent that the Federal Defendants request to change venue is granted. The Clerk of Court is therefore directed to immediately transfer this action to the District of Montana and close this file. Signed by Judge B. Lynn Winmill. (caused to be mailed to non Registered Participants at the addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by (cjs) [Transferred from idd on 9/12/2016.]

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO
FRANK REGINALD WALL,
Case No. 2:16-cv-00043-BLW
Plaintiff,

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND
ORDER

v.
UNITED STAETS DEPARTMENT OF
AGRICULTURE, et al.,
Defendants.

INTRODUCTION
The federal defendants – the United States Department of Agriculture, the United
States Forest Service, the Kootenai National Forest, and David E. Schmid, Christopher S.
Savage, and Lynn Hagarty in their official capacities as Forest Service employees – move
to dismiss the case, or, in the alternative, to transfer it to the District of Montana. See
Dkt. 16. The non-federal defendants – including Klepfer Mining Services, Eric Gregory
Klepfer, Mines Management, Inc. (“MMI”), MMI CEO Glenn M. Dobbs, MMI president
& secretary Douglas D. Dobbs, MMI Directors & MMI Officers Inclusive, and
Montanore Minerals Corporation, Montanore Project in Lincoln & Sanders County,
Montana, All Real, Financial, Intellectual Assets held By MMI, MMC and Newhi, Inc.,
and all Defendants listed in Plaintiff’s complaint under superscript “4” – have also moved
for dismissal. See Dkt. 8. For the reasons expressed below, the Court will transfer this
case to the District of Montana.
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 1

BACKGROUND
Pro se Plaintiff Frank Wall is seeking to prevent the non-federal defendants from
mining certain property located in Montana. He seeks an injunction (1) preventing the
Forest Service from issuing a Record of Decision related to the mining project, and (2)
freezing the assets of all non-federal defendants “except essential cash-flow to ‘keep the
doors open.’” Compl., Dkt. 1, at 5. Wall also seeks damages “in a modest eight-figure
USD sum . . . .” as well as “an estoppel against Defendants’ attorneys and the
Defendants’ legal gamesmanship as in the past nine years, . . . .” Id. at 5. Wall does not
allege that he owns any of the property at issue, or any related mining claims or patents.
See, e.g., Compl., Ex. B., at 135 of 650. Wall also suggests that his dissatisfaction with
the Montana proceedings motivated this action. As he puts it,
WALL alleges being unfairly and maliciously treated in the Montana
State District Court and in the Missoula Federal District Court. This
litigation gives a “clean sheet” approach with “the rest of the story”
and obviates any lawyer gamesmanship, delays and confusion
caused by the Non- Federal Defendants . . . .
Pl.’s Apr. 18, 2016 “Final Answer to Non-Federal Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, Dkt.
27, at 3.
It is difficult to precisely or completely identify Wall’s legal theories, but in broad
strokes, he is contending that defendants have violated his “civil and Constitutional
rights,” including his Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. See id. at 3, 13, 14-15.
Both sets of defendants move to dismiss Wall’s complaint under Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). The non-federal defendants also challenged this Court’s
subject-matter jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(1). The federal defendants have also moved,
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 2

in the alternative, for an order transferring this case to the District of Montana and
consolidating it with a case currently pending in that court.
ANALYSIS
1.

Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject-Matter Jurisdiction
The non-federal defendants contend that this Court lacks subject-matter

jurisdiction over Wall’s claim based on the fact that the criminal statutes Wall relies upon
– 18 U.S.C. §§ 241, 242, and 245 – do not create private rights of action. See NonFederal Defendants’ Motion Memo, Dkt. 8-1 at 11 (“It is well settled that no private right
of action is created by any of these statutes.”). This may be so, but the Court nevertheless
has jurisdiction to adjudicate Wall’s claims. In other words, defendants are raising a
defect regarding the merits of Wall’s claims – not a jurisdictional defect. Cf. Vaughn v.
Bay Environmental Mgmt., Inc., 567 F. 3d 1021, 2014 (9th Cir. 2009) (discussing an
ERISA claim, the court held that a “dismissal for lack of statutory standing is properly
viewed as a dismissal for failure to state a claim rather than a dismissal for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction.”)
2.

Motion to Change Venue
Having decided subject matter jurisdiction, the Court will resolve the

government’s request that this case be transferred to the District of Montana. This
request is made pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1404(a), which provides:
For the convenience of parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice,
a district court may transfer any civil action to any other district or
division where it might have been brought or to any district or division
to which all parties have consented.

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 3

When considering a motion to transfer venue under this section, a court must weigh
multiple factors, which could include, but are not limited to, the following:
(1) the location where the relevant agreements were negotiated and executed;
(2)

the state that is most familiar with the governing law;

(3) the plaintiff’s choice of forum;
(4)

the respective parties’ contacts with the forum;

(5) the contacts relating to the plaintiff’s cause of action in the chosen forum;
(6) the ease of access to sources of proof;
(7) the differences in the costs of litigation in the two forums; and
(8) the availability of compulsory process to compel attendance of unwilling
non-party witnesses.
Jones v. GNC Franchising, Inc., 211 F.3d 495, 498-99 (9th Cir. 2000) (citing Stewart
Org. v. Ricoh Corp., 487 U.S. 22, 29 (1988)). This balancing test is completed on a caseby-case basis, with different weight afforded to each of the elements in accordance with
the unique circumstances of each case. Id. While district courts are given broad discretion
in deciding whether a transfer is appropriate, the moving party bears the burden of
showing why a transfer is merited. Commodity Futures Trading Comm’n v. Savage, 611
F.2d 270, 279 (9th Cir. 1979).
In addition to the factors discussed above, these public-interest factors may also be
considered: (1) congestion in this Court as compared to congestion in the District of
Montana; (2) the “‘local interest in having localized controversies decided at home;’” and
(3) “the unfairness of burdening citizens in an unrelated forum with jury duty.” Decker,

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 4

805 F.2d at 843 (citing Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno, 454 U.S. 235, 241 n.6 (1981)).
The Court has considered all factors relevant to this lawsuit, and has concluded
that three factors, in particular, weigh heavily in favor of a transfer. These factors are (1)
(1) the location where the bulk of claim arose; (2) the importance of having localized
controversies decided at home; and (3) Court congestion and delay.
A. The Location of the Claim.
It is beyond dispute that the Walls’ claims are centered in Montana. The mining
project is in Montana, the disputed mining claims are located in Montana, and the
challenged government decision relates to real property in Montana. It does not appear
that Idaho is connected to the litigation in any way. This factor thus supports a transfer.
See, e.g., Sierra Club v. Flowers, 276 F. Supp.2d 62, 67-68, 70-71 (D.D.C. 2003)
(transferring NEPA claim to Florida, where the ecosystem was located; Airport Working
Grp. Of Orange Cty. Inc. v. U.S. Dep’t of Defense, 226 F. Supp.2d 227, 230 (D.D.C.
2002) (similar holding).
B.

The Importance of Deciding Localized Controversies at Home.

A dispute concerning a mining project in Montana logically should be decided in
the District of Montana – particularly where the parties to this lawsuit have already
engaged in litigation in the Montana courts on that subject matter.
C.

Court Congestion and Delay.

As for Court congestion and delay, the parties have not provided the Court with
statistical information. Broadly speaking, however, this Court is operating with a single
Article III judge and an extraordinarily congested docket. But even assuming that both
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 5

courts had equal caseloads, it would still be more efficient to have this matter litigated in
Montana. The parties have already been engaged in litigation in Montana regarding the
subject matter of this lawsuit – meaning that the District of Montana will undoubtedly be
able to familiarize itself with, and resolve, this action more quickly than this Court could.
Indeed, the government suggests that this case should be immediately consolidated with
another, pending case. See Federal Defendants’ Motion Mem., Dkt. 16-1, at 13
(indicating that, if transferred, Wall’s action should be consolidated with Save our
Cabinets, et al. v. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Serv., Case No. 15-CV-069-M-DWM (D. Mont.).
This Court will not order consolidation, but will instead leave that question to judge
presiding over the federal district case in Montana. Nevertheless, given this sort of
background, the District of Montana is in the best position to fairly and thoroughly
evaluate plaintiffs’ complaint.
ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that the Federal Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss or, in the
Alternative, to Change Venue (Dkt. 8) is GRANTED IN PART. Specifically, the motion
is granted to extent that the Federal Defendants’ request to change venue is granted. The
Clerk of Court is therefore directed to immediately transfer this action to the District of
Montana and close this file.

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 6

DATED: September 12, 2016

_________________________
B. Lynn Winmill
Chief Judge
United States District Court

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 7