Gilmore v. Weatherford
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 18602
| 10th Cir. | 2012Background
- Chat piles Ottawa and Sooner contain both restricted and unrestricted Quapaw interests and are comingled.
- Three restricted owners sue Bingham (unrestricted owner) and the Estate for removal/sale of chat without Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) approval and for an accounting.
- Plaintiffs also sue the Secretary of the Interior and BIA officials (federal defendants) seeking relief under APA and common-law accounting.
- District court dismissed federal claims for failure to exhaust administrative remedies but assumed common-law accounting could lie outside APA, and dismissed private-defendant claims for lack of jurisdiction.
- On appeal, the panel holds exhaustion proper as to federal claims; reverses as to jurisdiction over private defendants’ claims; and remands for further proceedings.
- The court analyzes jurisdiction under Grable/Empire standards and considers whether federal questions are substantial and central to the case.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether exhaustion of administrative remedies was required. | Plaintiffs argue 25 C.F.R. §§ 2.8–2.9 apply but did not exhaust. | Federal regsulations require exhaustion; district court did not abuse discretion. | Yes, exhaustion properly required. |
| Whether the district court had jurisdiction over private-defendant claims. | State-law accounting/conversion claims fall under federal question jurisdiction. | Claims are state-law; no federal question unless substantial. | Conversion claim grants federal-question jurisdiction; reverse and remand. |
| Whether the accounting claim against private defendants arises under federal law. | Accounting implicates federal requirements for removal of restricted property. | Not necessary to resolve federal issues for accounting claim. | The claim raises a substantial federal issue; jurisdiction exists. |
| Whether the district court properly dismissed all claims against federal defendants. | Exhaustion should not bar APA or common-law claims. | Exhaustion bars non-APA claims absent proper exhaustion. | Affirmed as to federal-defendant claims. |
Key Cases Cited
- Grable & Sons Metal Products, Inc. v. Darue Engineering & Mfg., 545 U.S. 308 (U.S. 2005) (establishes narrow, substantial federal-question jurisdiction)
- Empire HealthChoice Assurance, Inc. v. McVeigh, 547 U.S. 677 (U.S. 2006) (limits substantial federal-question jurisdiction to central issues)
- United Tribe of Shawnee Indians v. United States, 253 F.3d 543 (10th Cir. 2001) (exhaustion discretionary in non-APA cases)
- Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199 (U.S. 2007) (exhaustion requires completing the administrative process)
- Nicodemus v. Union Pacific Corp., 440 F.3d 1227 (10th Cir. 2006) (federal-question jurisdiction may apply to substantial federal questions)
- Oneida Indian Nation v. County of Oneida, 414 U.S. 661 (U.S. 1974) (title disputes involving federal statutes do not automatically raise federal questions)
- Coosewoon v. Meridian Oil Co., 25 F.3d 920 (10th Cir. 1994) (administrative procedures can govern agency action challenges)
- Simmat v. U.S. Bureau of Prisons, 413 F.3d 1225 (10th Cir. 2005) (sovereign-immunity waiver not limited to APA)