Case Summary
Issue:
Whether federal land management agencies may, by regulation, establish a scheme that results in the automatic forfeiture of valuable property rights?
Plaintiff:
Donald, Judith and Christopher Mullikin
Defendant:
Secretary of Interior, Ken Salazar
Join the Fight
Since 1977, MSLF has fought to protect private property rights, individual liberties, and economic freedom. MSLF is a nonprofit public interest legal foundation. We represent clients pro bono and receive no government funding. Make your 100% tax deductible contribution today and join the fight.
Case History
Three Alaska miners sued Secretary of the Interior, Ken Salazar, among others in Alaska federal district court after their claims were declared null and void by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) The lawsuit, filed in October 2010, followed the September refusal by the Interior Board of Land Appeals (IBLA) to order a hearing to determine whether the BLM could claim a presumption of regularity in its treatment of the miners’ files and their documents. Donald E., Judith, and Christopher L. Mullikin of Homer assert that the BLM’s invalidation of their seventeen (17) mining claims in the Seward Peninsula was illegal because they provided the BLM with the required documentation on a timely basis and “cured” the alleged failure of the BLM to process their documents. In their lawsuit, the Mullikins challenge BLM regulations, the refusal of the IBLA to overturn the BLM’s actions, and actions by the BLM to eject the Mullikins from their claims.
On March 27, 2009, the Mullikins mailed completed small miner waiver certificates for the 2009–2010 assessment year to the BLM’s Fairbanks office. They did not mail the forms by certified mail because they were mailing them well in advance of the September 1 filing deadline. On September 25, 2009, they received a telephone call from the BLM advising that it could not locate the Mullikins’ certificates. The Mullikins offered to fax a copy of the certificates they had sent but were told not to bother. On November 12, 2009, the Mullikins sent the BLM duplicates of the March 27, 2009, cover letters and small miner waiver certificates and, on November 30, 2009, sent copies of recorded Affidavits of Annual Labor for the 2008–2009 assessment year with checks to cover the $10 per claim filing fee. The BLM cashed the checks and mailed receipts to the Mullikins.
On December 8, 2009, the BLM issued decisions voiding the Mullikins’ claims but noting a right of appeal to the IBLA. On December 28, 2009, the Mullikins sent two other duplicate sets of the March 27, 2009, cover letters and completed small miner waiver certificates to the Alaska State Office of the BLM and advised that the resubmitted certificates were timely under the cure provision because they were submitted within 60 days of the BLM’s December 8, 2009, decision. On January 7, 2010, the Mullikins filed Notices of Appeal and Petitions for Stay with the IBLA.
On October 22, 2010, the Mullikins filed their complaint with the United States District Court for the District of Alaska. On December 28, 2010, the federal defendants filed their answer. On January 14, 2011, the district court ordered the federal defendants to file the administrative record within 60 days.
On February 24, 2011, the federal defendants filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings as to the Mullikins’ second, third, and fourth claims for relief. On March 4, 2011, the federal defendants filed an administrative record and moved for an extension of time in which to file the administrative record as to the Mullikins’ second, third, and fourth claims for relief.
On April 1, 2011, the Mullikins filed an opposition to the federal defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings and filed an opposition to defendants’ motion for time to file the administrative record as to the Mullikins’ second, third, and fourth claims for relief. On April 8, 2011, the federal defendants filed a reply with respect to their motion for time. On April 11, 2011, the district court granted the federal defendants’ motion for time to file the administrative record as to the Mullikins’ second, third, and fourth claims for relief.
On April 14, 2011, the Mullikins filed their motion for summary judgment. On June 16, 2011, the federal defendants filed a response in opposition to the motion for summary judgment. On July 5, 2011, the Mullikins filed their reply. On September 16, 2011, the district court heard oral arguments on the pending motions.
On September 21, 2011, the district court granted the federal defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings as to the Mullikins’ third and fourth claims for relief and denied the motion as to the Mullikins’ second claim for relief. The district court also denied the Mullikins motion for summary judgment without prejudice subject to being renewed after federal defendants file the administrative record as to the Mullikins second claim for relief.