Orr et al v. US EPA et al
Filing
8
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION AND ORDER that the Plaintiffs' claims asserted under the ESA are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE and the Plaintiffs' claims asserted under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 are hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Signed by District Judge Martin Reidinger on 6/5/17. (ejb)
THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
ASHEVILLE DIVISION
CIVIL CASE NO. 1:17-cv-00141-MR-DLH
WILLIAM ORR, CHARLES ORR,
CHARLES ORR, on behalf of Ina Orr
(his unborn daughter due mid June),
and YVONNE HEGNEY, individually
and on behalf of Roan Mountain, her
threatened and endangered species,
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
vs.
)
)
U.S. EPA, U.S. FOREST SERVICE,
)
U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE, )
FRENCH BROAD ELECTRIC
)
MEMBERSHIP CORPORATION, and )
JEFF LOVEN, personally and as
)
General Manager,
)
)
Defendants.
)
_______________________________ )
MEMORANDUM OF
DECISION AND ORDER
THIS MATTER is before the Court on the Plaintiffs’ “Verified Complaint
for an Emergency Temporary Restraining Order, Preliminary/Permanent
Injunction and Other Relief” [Doc. 1] and the Plaintiffs’ Motion for an
Emergency Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction [Doc.
2].
I.
PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
The Plaintiffs commenced this action on June 1, 2017, against the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the United States Forest Service
(USFS), the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), the French
Broad Electric Membership Corporation (FBE), and FBE’s General Manager
Jeff Loven (Loven), seeking to enjoin FBE and Loven from spraying certain
EPA-approved herbicides on or near Roan Mountain.
Specifically, the
Plaintiffs contend that the spraying of such herbicides will irreparably harm
the “critical habitats” and threatened/endangered species residing on Roan
Mountain, in violation of the Endangered Species Act, 16 U.S.C. § 1531, et
seq. (ESA). The Plaintiffs also challenge EPA’s administrative approval of
the use of such herbicides in applications that would threaten endangered
species. The Plaintiffs further seek an injunction requiring EPA, USFS, and
USFWS to enforce the provisions of the ESA in order to protect the critical
habitats and threatened/endangered species residing on Roan Mountain.
Finally, the Plaintiffs contend that FBE and Loven’s plan to spray EPAapproved herbicides on or near Roan Mountain violate the Plaintiffs’ First
Amendment “religious rights, health, lives, property, well being and ‘sacred’
way of life,” in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983. [Doc. 1 at 1-2].
2
II.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
Federal district courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. United States
ex rel. Vuyyuru v. Jadhav, 555 F.3d 337, 347 (4th Cir. 2009). The lack of
subject matter jurisdiction is an issue that may be raised sua sponte, and if
the Court determines that subject matter jurisdiction is lacking, the case must
be dismissed. See Ellenburg v. Spartan Motors Chassis, Inc., 519 F.3d 192,
196 (4th Cir. 2008); Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3).
III.
DISCUSSION
A.
Plaintiffs’ ESA Claims
A citizen may bring suit under the ESA “to enjoin any person, including
the United States and any other governmental instrumentality or agency . . .
who is alleged to be in violation of any provision of this chapter or regulation
issued under the authority thereof.” 16 U.S.C. § 1540(g)(1)(A). Prior to filing
suit, however, the plaintiff must comply with § 1540(g)(2)(A)(i), which
provides that “[n]o action may be commenced under subparagraph (1)(A) of
this section . . . prior to sixty days after written notice of the violation has been
given to the Secretary,1 and to any alleged violator of such provision or
The term “Secretary,” as used in the ESA, generally refers to “the Secretary of the
Interior or the Secretary of Commerce as program responsibilities are vested pursuant to
the provisions of Reorganization Plan Numbered 4 of 1970 . . . .” 16 U.S.C. § 1532(15).
3
1
regulation.” 16 U.S.C. § 1540(g)(2)(A)(i). The purpose of the 60-day notice
requirement “is to put the agencies on notice of a perceived violation of the
statute and an intent to sue. When given notice, the agencies have an
opportunity to review their actions and take corrective measures if warranted.
The provision therefore provides an opportunity for settlement or other
resolution of a dispute without litigation.”
Southwest Ctr. for Biological
Diversity v. United States Bureau of Reclamation, 143 F.3d 515, 520 (9th
Cir. 1998) (quoting Forest Conservation Council v. Espy, 835 F. Supp. 1202,
1210 (D. Id. 1993), aff’d, 42 F.3d 1399 (9th Cir. 1994)).
The 60-day notice requirement “is a mandatory, not optional, condition
precedent for suit.” Friends of Animals v. Ashe, 808 F.3d 900, 903 (D.C. Cir.
2015) (quoting Hallstrom v. Tillamook County, 493 U.S. 20, 26 (1989)
(interpreting similar 60-day notice requirement in the Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act)). Providing 60 days’ notice is a jurisdictional requirement,
and a plaintiff’s “failure to strictly comply with the notice requirement acts as
an absolute bar to bringing suit under the ESA.” Southwest Ctr. for Biological
Diversity, 143 F.3d at 520; see also Hawksbill Sea Turtle v. Federal
Emergency Mgmt. Agency, 126 F.3d 461, 471 (3d Cir. 1997) (“Providing
notice to the responsible Secretary(ies) . . . is a prerequisite to suit.”).
4
Here, the Plaintiffs failed to give the Defendants the required 60-day
notice. The Plaintiffs filed suit on June 1, 2017. The exhibits attached to the
Verified Complaint include a letter dated May 26, 2017 addressed to FBE
and Loven giving notice of the alleged violations of the ESA.2 [Doc. 1 at 63].
According to the Verified Complaint, this is the earliest notice provided to the
Defendants of the alleged violations. [See id. at 43 ¶¶ 54-56]. Indeed, the
Plaintiffs themselves admit that they only learned of FBE’s plan to spray
herbicides on Roan Mountain “within the past couple of weeks.” [Id. at 19].
Because the Plaintiffs failed to provide the Defendants with the mandatory
60 days’ notice, this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to entertain this
action, and thus the Plaintiffs’ ESA claims must be dismissed.
B.
Plaintiffs’ § 1983 Claims
The Court possesses the inherent authority to dismiss a complaint sua
sponte if the complaint is frivolous. See Ross v. Baron, 493 F. App’x 405,
406 (4th Cir. 2012) (noting that “frivolous complaints are subject to dismissal
pursuant to the inherent authority of the court, even when the filing fee has
been paid”) (citing Mallard v. United States Dist. Ct. for S.D. of Iowa, 490
U.S. 296, 307-08 (1989)). A complaint is deemed frivolous “where it lacks
2
The letter indicates that copies of this notice were provided to the Secretary of the
Interior, EPA, USFS, and USFWS. [Doc. 1 at 75].
5
an arguable basis either in law or in fact.” Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319,
325 (1989); Adams v. Rice, 40 F.3d 72, 75 (4th Cir. 1994) (“Legally frivolous
claims are based on an ‘indisputedly meritless legal theory’ and including
‘claims of infringement of a legal interest which clearly does not exist.’”)
(citation omitted).
The Plaintiffs’ claims asserted under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against FBE
and Loven are subject to dismissal as being frivolous. As the Fourth Circuit
has explained:
To implicate 42 U.S.C. § 1983, conduct must be fairly
attributable to the State. The person charged must
either be a state actor or have a sufficiently close
relationship with state actors such that a court would
conclude that the non-state actor is engaged in the
state’s actions. Thus, the Supreme Court has held
that private activity will generally not be deemed
“state action” unless the state has so dominated such
activity as to convert it into state action: [m]ere
approval of or acquiescence in the initiatives of a
private party is insufficient.
DeBauche v. Trani, 191 F.3d 499, 506-07 (4th Cir. 1999) (internal quotation
marks and citations omitted). Here, the Plaintiffs have brought suit against
a North Carolina corporation and its general manager. The Plaintiffs have
made no allegation that these Defendants have a sufficiently close
relationship with state actors such that the Court could conclude that they
were engaged in governmental action. As such, the Plaintiffs have no basis
6
to assert § 1983 claims against FBE and Loven in this case. Further, to the
extent that the Plaintiffs may be asserting § 1983 claims against EPA, USFS,
and/or USFWS, it is well-established that § 1983 does not apply to federal
actors. See Wheeldin v. Wheeler, 373 U.S. 647, 650 n.2 (1963).
For all of these reasons, the Court concludes that the Plaintiffs’ action
must be dismissed.
ORDER
IT IS, THEREORE, ORDERED that the Plaintiffs’ claims asserted
under the ESA are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE and the Plaintiffs’
claims asserted under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 are hereby DISMISSED WITH
PREJUDICE.
The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to close this civil action.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Signed: June 5, 2017
7
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?