Duckworth v. US EX REL. LOCKE
2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 99564
D.D.C.2011Background
- Plaintiffs Duckworth, F/V Reaper, Inc., and F/V Twister, Inc. challenged NOAA/NOAA NMFS final agency action under the Magnuson-Stevens Act.
- NOAA issued NOVAs and NOPSs on August 2, 2007 alleging nine violations, including a false statement in a permit application and lobster fishing without a valid permit.
- An administrative hearing before ALJ Michael Devine occurred May 6–8, 2008, resulting in an Initial Decision upholding violations and imposing penalties and permit revocations.
- NOAA Administrator Jane Lubchenco issued a final order on November 24, 2009, affirming violations but reducing penalties and suspending permits for 48 months.
- This Court granted summary judgment in Defendants’ favor on April 15, 2010; the Court of Appeals affirmed on April 21, 2011.
- Plaintiffs moved under Rule 60(b) for relief during the appeal, relying on an OIG September 2010 final report evaluating NOAA enforcement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the OIG September 2010 report supports Rule 60(b) relief. | OIG report shows prosecutorial misconduct tainting action. | OIG report not specific to Plaintiffs; no new material evidence. | No relief; report not specific to Plaintiffs and not new material evidence. |
| Whether the September 2010 OIG report constitutes newly discovered evidence under Rule 60(b)(2). | Evidence existed but was not previously available; merits relief. | No newly discovered evidence directly regarding Plaintiffs’ enforcement action. | Not eligible for relief under Rule 60(b)(2). |
| Whether the enforcement attorney’s recommended penalties were adopted, impacting final agency action. | Penalties were influenced by misconduct, invalidating final action. | NOAA Administrator independently decided penalties; final action remains valid. | Final agency action sustained; independent Administrator decision governs. |
| Whether the OIG reports undermine the substantial-evidence basis for the sanctions. | OIG findings show bias/overreach affecting penalties. | ALJ and Administrator relied on record; OIG findings do not undermine substantial evidence. | No basis to set aside; substantial evidence supported final action. |
| Whether an extraordinary change in law or fact warrants reopening under Rule 60(b)(6). | Extraordinary circumstances justify reopening. | No extraordinary circumstances demonstrated. | Rule 60(b)(6) not satisfied. |
Key Cases Cited
- Berger v. United States, 295 U.S. 78 (1935) (prosecutorial misconduct can require a new trial in narrow circumstances)
- Lepkowski v. U.S. Dept. of Treasury, 804 F.2d 1310 (D.C. Cir. 1986) (merits required for Rule 60(b) relief; meritorious defense standard)
- Epps v. Howes, 573 F. Supp. 2d 180 (D.D.C. 2008) (newly discovered evidence must be material and not cumulative)
- Horne v. Flores, 557 U.S. 433 (S. Ct. 2009) (change in law may justify relief under Rule 60(b)(5))
- Rufo v. Inmates of Suffolk County Jail, 502 U.S. 367 (U.S. 1992) (significant change in facts or law can warrant reopening)