Herr v. United States Forest Service
803 F.3d 809
| 6th Cir. | 2015Background
- David and Pamela Herr bought two waterfront lots on Crooked Lake (MI) in September 2010 intending to use gas-powered motorboats; most of the lake lies within the federally protected Sylvania Wilderness where motorized boats are restricted to small electric motors by a Forest Service 2006/2007 forest order.
- The Herrs had previously boated on the lake and used the Forest Service landing (2010–2012) without enforcement; in 2013 the Forest Service notified local owners it would fully enforce the motorboat restriction within the wilderness portion.
- The Herrs sued in May 2014 under the Administrative Procedure Act seeking to enjoin enforcement of the motorboat restriction as an unlawful infringement of their state-law property right to use the full lake surface (asserted under Michigan law and the Michigan Wilderness Act’s savings clause).
- The district court dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, holding the six-year statute of limitations in 28 U.S.C. § 2401(a) was jurisdictional and had run from the 2007 forest order.
- The Sixth Circuit reversed: it held § 2401(a) is not jurisdictional under the Supreme Court’s recent limits on jurisdictional labels (notably Kwai Fun Wong), and the Herrs’ cause of action accrued when they acquired the lakefront lots in 2010 (so their 2014 suit was timely).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether 28 U.S.C. § 2401(a) is jurisdictional | § 2401(a) is a statute of limitations, not a jurisdictional bar | § 2401(a) is a jurisdictional condition on district-court power (Little Tucker Act roots) | Not jurisdictional; § 2401(a) is a claim-processing/time bar subject to waiver and equitable doctrines (court follows Kwai Fun Wong/Arbaugh line) |
| When § 2401(a) accrual occurs for an APA challenge to agency rule that affects property rights | Accrual occurs when plaintiff first becomes aggrieved — here when Herrs bought the lots in Sept 2010 | Accrual occurred at final agency action in 2007 (or runs from predecessor owner’s claim) | Accrual occurred in Sept 2010 when Herrs acquired the property interest; suit filed 2014 is timely |
| Whether predecessor-in-interest’s earlier accrual bars successor’s later suit | Herrs have their own right of action that accrued on acquisition; choses in action do not automatically transfer without manifest assignment | Successor takes land subject to existing rights; predecessor’s accrued claim should bar successor | Predecessor’s accrual does not automatically start successor’s limitations period absent assignment or statute; § 2401(a) contains no predecessor clause |
| Whether exhaustion or administrative review requirement (7 U.S.C. § 6912(e)) is jurisdictional or required here | § 6912(e) is a non-jurisdictional exhaustion requirement and is excused where exhaustion would be futile | The exhaustion requirement is jurisdictional and plaintiffs failed to comply | § 6912(e) is non-jurisdictional; exhaustion is excused as futile given prior agency rejections and threatened criminal enforcement |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Kwai Fun Wong, 135 S. Ct. 1625 (2015) (statute of limitations against U.S. is nonjurisdictional; applied the clear-statement rule)
- Arbaugh v. Y & H Corp., 546 U.S. 500 (2006) (distinguishes substantive subject-matter jurisdiction from other limits and requires clear statements to treat rules as jurisdictional)
- John R. Sand & Gravel Co. v. United States, 552 U.S. 130 (2008) (held § 2501 jurisdictional but limited by stare decisis; distinguishes statutes previously authoritatively interpreted)
- Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Environment, 523 U.S. 83 (1998) (subject-matter jurisdiction defines the court’s power to adjudicate)
- Sackett v. EPA, 132 S. Ct. 1367 (2012) (defines final agency action for APA review)
- Lujan v. Nat'l Wildlife Fed'n, 497 U.S. 871 (1990) (injury and final agency action required for APA standing/claim accrual)
- Henderson ex rel. Henderson v. Shinseki, 562 U.S. 428 (2011) (mandatory jurisdictional defects require dismissal and cannot be forfeited)
- Heimeshoff v. Hartford Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 134 S. Ct. 604 (2013) (statute of limitations begins when plaintiff can file suit and obtain relief)
- Free Enterprise Fund v. PCAOB, 561 U.S. 477 (2010) (courts do not require plaintiffs to expose themselves to enforcement to challenge a law’s validity)