Atchafalaya Basinkeeper v. Sandra Thompson
682 F.3d 356
| 5th Cir. | 2012Background
- Appellants allege the Corps-issued § 1344 permit for Bayou Postillion violated permit conditions by not maintaining spoil-bank gaps for water flow and wetland life.
- District court dismissed the citizen-suit claims under § 1365 as not enforceable against permit conditions.
- Appellants sue the Program and its Acting Director under the Clean Water Act’s citizen-suit provision.
- The program’s dredging creates spoil banks along the Bayou, allegedly impacting wetlands.
- The court reviews whether § 1365 confers a private right to enforce § 1344 permit conditions against the Corps-administered permit.
- Court affirms dismissal, holding no private right to enforce § 1344 permit conditions exists.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §1365 authorizes citizen suits to enforce §1344 permit conditions | Appellants rely on §1365(f)(1) and §1365(f)(6) to reach §1344 permits. | Program argues no private right exists to enforce §1344 permit conditions via §1365. | No private right to enforce §1344 permit conditions via §1365. |
| Whether §1365(f)(6) implicitly covers §1344 permit conditions to avoid redundancy | §1365(f)(6) should cover §1344 permit conditions by itself, avoiding redundancy. | Redundancy would arise if §1365(f)(1) already provides such suits; statutory text does not require §1344 relief. | Statutory construction rejects private rights for §1344 permit-condition violations; redundancy avoided. |
Key Cases Cited
- Middlesex Cnty. Sewerage Auth. v. Nat’l Sea Clammers Ass’n, 453 U.S. 1 (1981) (limits implied private rights when enforcement remedies are elaborate)
- Gwaltney of Smithfield, Ltd. v. Chesapeake Bay Found., Inc., 484 U.S. 49 (1987) (private enforcement helps to be interstitial, not intrusive)
- Bass v. Stryker Corp., 669 F.3d 501 (5th Cir. 2012) (Rule 12(b)(6) de novo standard for dismissal; plausibility pleading)
- Jebaco, Inc. v. Harrah’s Operating Co., 587 F.3d 312 (5th Cir. 2009) (pleading standards for plausibility)
- Wampler v. Sw. Bell Tel. Co., 597 F.3d 741 (5th Cir. 2010) (statutory interpretation and remedies; private rights must be explicit)
- Khalid v. Holder, 655 F.3d 363 (5th Cir. 2011) (simpler reading favored; avoid oblique statutory construction)
- Kungys v. United States, 485 U.S. 759 (1988) (no provision should be construed as redundant)