Justia Government & Administrative Law Opinion Summaries

In 2007, employees of Richard Energy traveled to China and arranged with Chinese manufacturer RG Petro to purchase rigs that are used to repair oil wells. Richard Energy took possession of the rigs in China and exported them to the United States. The rigs were consigned to Eagle Well Service, Inc. ("EWS"), and delivered in Kansas. EWS later moved one of the rigs to Oklahoma, where Plaintiff Joel Monge, an EWS employee covered by workers' compensation, was seriously injured during an accident involving the rig. Plaintiff filed a diversity action against EWS under Oklahoma's intentional tort exception to the exclusive remedy of Oklahoma's Workers' Compensation Act and against Richard Energy and RG Petro under Oklahoma's manufacturers' products liability laws. RG Petro moved to dismiss based on lack of personal jurisdiction, and EWS filed a motion for summary judgment contending the intentional tort exception did not apply. The district court granted both motions. Plaintiff filed a motion to alter or amend the court's summary judgment order, which the district court denied except for a request to fix a date in the order. Plaintiff appealed, arguing that there was a genuine issue of material fact as to his claim against EWS; that the district court abused its discretion in denying his motion to alter or amend the judgment; and that the district court erred in finding that it lacked personal jurisdiction over RG Petro. FInding no error in the district court record, the Tenth Circuit affirmed. View "Monge v. RG Petro-Machinery, et al" on Justia Law

In August 2010, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) commenced "regular" removal proceedings against Petitioner Antonio Aguilar-Aguilar, a citizen of Mexico. In response to the Notice to Appear (NTA), Petitioner conceded his removal as "[a]n alien present in the United States without being admitted." Petitioner informed the immigration judge (IJ), however, that he was in the process of seeking discretionary relief in the form of adjustment of status to lawful permanent resident as provided for in 8 U.S.C. 1255(i). Over Petitioner's objection, DHS then moved to dismiss the NTA as improvidently issued and to terminate Petitioner's proceedings without prejudice. As an alien without lawful residency who had been convicted of an aggravated felony, Petitioner was deportable and thus amenable to "expedited" removal proceedings. After the IJ granted DHS's motion, DHS commenced proceedings against Petitioner and issued a Final Administrative Removal Order (FARO) directing his removal to Mexico. The FARO found Petitioner "ineligible for any relief from removal that [DHS] may grant in an exercise of discretion." Petitioner now asks us to review a FARO he claims DHS issued in violation of his Fifth Amendment right to procedural due process. The Tenth Circuit denied review: "Petitioner simply 'has no liberty or property interest in obtaining purely discretionary relief." And that is all Petitioner [sought]" on appeal. View "Aguilar-Aguilar v. Holder" on Justia Law

This case concerned the construction of a new Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) rail/truck terminal outside Kansas City, Kansas. Because the preferred site contained streams and wetlands protected under federal law, several groups (collectively, "Hillsdale") brought challenges to a dredge and fill permit issued by the United States Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) under the Clean Water Act. The district court denied Hillsdale's motion for an injunction and granted summary judgment for the Corps and BNSF. On appeal, Hillsdale requested that the Tenth Circuit set aside the Corps's decision to grant the permit because the Corps inadequately considered alternatives to the selected site under the Clean Water Act and violated the National Environmental Policy Act by preparing an inadequate environmental assessment and failing to prepare a full environmental impact statement. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit concluded the Corps's decision was supported by the record, and was not an arbitrary and capricious exercise of its approval powers under federal law. View "Hillside Environmental Loss, et al v. United States Army Corps, et al" on Justia Law

Pro se Appellant Charles Buchheit appealed a district court's sua sponte dismissal of his complaint against certain Defendant Kansas State officials. Clerk of the Kansas appellate courts Carol Green cross-appealed the district court's denial of her motion to review the magistrate judge's order granting Appellant in forma pauperis status (IFP). Appellant filed his "Petition for Injunctive Relief Under the Fourteenth Amendment, As Well As, the Equal Access to Justice Act" naming as defendants Ms. Green and Shawnee County Court Judge Daniel Mitchell. He alleged that the Kansas state appellate courts had denied his request to proceed IFP and had refused to docket his state appeals. Ms. Green objected on the grounds that the magistrate judge failed to screen the complaint under 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2). The district court overruled the objection but dismissed the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, finding that Appellant sought retrospective relief against the state that was barred by sovereign immunity. Because he was seeking to address alleged past harms rather than prevent prospective violations of federal law, the Tenth Circuit concluded that the request did not fall into the "Ex Parte Young" exception to state sovereign immunity, and accordingly affirmed the district court's dismissal of Appellant's complaint. With regard to Ms. Green's cross-appeal, the Tenth Circuit agreed that "[t]hough screening might be a good practice and more efficient," the Court found that nothing in the language of 28 U.S.C. 1915 (e)(2) requires an assigned magistrate judge to screen a case for merit or to make a recommendation for dismissal to the district court before granting IFP status. "But the language of the present rule also provides needed flexibility, even if it sometimes requires defendants like Ms. Green and Judge Mitchell to respond to complaints that may soon be dismissed as without merit. It simply does not require district courts to review the merits of every claim that comes before them in an IFP motion, and we decline to read in such an extensive duty absent statutory language to that effect." View "Buchheit v. Green" on Justia Law

Petitioner Hector Barrera–Quintero, a native and citizen of Mexico, faced removal from the United States. He sought review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) decision finding him ineligible for cancellation of removal. "Because Congress tightly constrains [the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals'] power to review discretionary aspects of the BIA’s orders of removal, we must dismiss in part his petition for lack of jurisdiction." The Court could, however, review constitutional claims and questions of law involving statutory construction. In this case, Petitioner's eligibility for cancellation of removal hinged on whether he maintained at least ten years of continuous physical presence in this country, as required by the terms of 8 U.S.C. sec. 1229b(b)(1)(A). Because the BIA relied on a reasonable statutory construction in finding Petitioner failed to satisfy the continuous-presence requirement, the Court denied the remainder of the petition for review. View "Barrera-Quintero v. Holder, Jr." on Justia Law

Cordero Mining LLC (Cordero) sought review of a Decision and Order of an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) issued on December 5, 2011, which found that Cordero violated section 105(c) of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977 by terminating employee Cindy L. Clapp. Cordero requested that judgment be entered in its favor and that the Tenth Circuit (a) vacate the ALJ's finding that Cordero violated the Act, (b) vacate the ALJ's orders that Ms. Clapp be reinstated, that she be paid back-pay, that Cordero's files remove reference to her termination, and that a copy of the decision and order be posted, and (c) vacate the penalties imposed by the ALJ. The Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission denied review of the ALJ's decision. The Tenth Circuit denied the petition for review and affirmed the order of the ALJ. "[A]fter reviewing the record as a whole, we find substantial evidence to support the ALJ's finding of discrimination and decision to award full back pay. In addition, the penalty imposed was not excessive or an abuse of discretion." View "Cordero Mining LLC v. FMSHR" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, Rural Water District No. 2 Creek County, Oklahoma, a rural water provider covered by 7 U.S.C. 1926(b), and Defendant Glenpool Utility Services Authority, a public trust created to provide water service, and its beneficiary, Defendant City of Glenpool, entered into a Settlement Agreement under which Plaintiff agreed not to file a civil action pursuant to section 1926(b) during the term of the agreement unless Defendants defaulted on their contractual obligations. Subsequently, Plaintiff filed the civil action underlying this appeal pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983 alleging Defendants violated section 1926(b). The district court dismissed the action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The issue on appeal to the Tenth Circuit centered on whether Plaintiff’s agreement not to file a civil action against Defendants, absent default, deprived the Court of subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1331, where a state court had not yet determined whether Defendants defaulted. Upon review, the Court held that such agreement did not deprive the Court of subject matter jurisdiction, and it reversed and remanded. View "Rural Wtr Dist No 2 Creek Cnty v. City of Glenpool, et al" on Justia Law

The dispute before the Tenth Circuit in this case centered on interest earned on block grants made to Indian tribes pursuant to the Native American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act. Specifically, Appellant Muscogee (Creek) Nation's Division of Housing challenged both a regulation placing a two-year limit on the investment of grant funds and two notices issued by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development stating that any interest accrued after the expiration of this two-year period must be returned to the Department. The Nation sought declaratory relief invalidating the regulation and notices as well as an injunction to prevent HUD from recouping interest earned on grant funds. The Nation also sought recoupment of the approximately $1.3 million of earned interest it wired to HUD after HUD sent a letter threatening an enforcement action based on the Nation’s investment of grant funds for longer than two years. The district court dismissed the complaint, holding that HUD’s sovereign immunity was not waived by the Administrative Procedures Act and, in the alternative, that the Nation had failed to state a claim on which relief could be granted because HUD’s interpretation of the statute was permissible. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit concluded that HUD was authorized to promulgate a regulation limiting the period for investments, and required to demand remittance of interest earned in violation of the regulation. The Nation was therefore not entitled to recouping the interest it paid to HUD pursuant to HUD's enforcement of its rules. View "Muscogee (Creek) Nation v. HUD, et al" on Justia Law

Plaintiff-Appellant Bridget Smith worked for Rail Link, Inc. (Rail Link) as a freight operator in Wyoming. She was injured on the job, and subsequently sued Rail Link and its corporate parent Genessee & Wyoming, Inc. (GWI) in federal district court, asserting that the companies were liable for her injuries under the Federal Employers Liability Act (FELA). The Defendants moved for summary judgment, contending that they were not subject to FELA liability for Plaintiff's injuries because FELA only applies where a defendant is the injured worker's employer and is a common carrier. Rail Link argued it was a not a common carrier, and GWI argued it was neither a common carrier nor Plaintiff's Smith's employer. The district court agreed granted summary judgment for both Defendants. Upon appeal, the Tenth Circuit affirmed: "[t]he concept of employment under FELA is a broad one, but to show an employment relationship a plaintiff still must offer some evidence that physical conduct was or could have been controlled by an alleged employer. The record here is lacking in [that] regard, compelling a ruling in GWI's favor." View "Smith v. Rail Link, Inc., et al" on Justia Law

In this litigation, Appellants (plaintiffs below) brought an action under 42 U.S.C. 1983, challenging the statutory scheme by which the state of Kansas funds its public schools. The district court dismissed their suit for lack of standing. Upon review of the matter and the applicable statutory authority, the Tenth Circuit concluded that the Appellants had standing because their alleged injury, unequal treatment by the state, would be redressed by a favorable decision. Accordingly, the Court reversed and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Petrella, et al v. DeBacker, et al" on Justia Law