Miller v. State of Utah, 638 F. App'x 707

Miller purchased Vipont Mine and initially handled regulatory compliance.
In 1985 Miller filed a Declaration of Exemption under Utah law exempting the mine from reclamation until 1987 amendments required reclamation unless abandoned before effective date.
Celebration Mining Company obtained a NOI in 1995 and later conveyed 75% ownership back to Miller; Division unaware of subsequent ownership changes.
Division created a 2003 NOI map; the map did not mark exemptions and the mapper admitted possible bias against Miller’s exemption.
Aurora Oil and Gas (Celebration’s parent) entered reclamation agreements; Aurora later filed for bankruptcy and Division sought performance of reclamation through a stipulation.
Aurora, later Northstar Energy LLC, reclaimed the mine in 2010; Miller sued Northstar and Utah state defendants asserting federal due process, takings, and state-law torts.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether federal claims are barred by immunity	Miller argues state entities violated rights.	State immunity bars federal claims; qualified immunity for officials.	Granted immunity; federal claims barred
Whether Division notice violated procedural due process	Procedural due process required Miller be noticed about impairment of property.	Division reasonably relied on operator; no clearly established notice duty to owners of personal property.	No procedural due process violation
Whether Division actions violated substantive due process	Map creation shocks conscience by long plan to reclaim exempt property.	No egregious, deliberate conduct; not conscience-shocking.	No substantive due process violation
Whether Utah Governmental Immunity Act bars state-law tort claims	Immunity waived for negligent acts by employees; exceptions for permits and discretionary acts do not apply.	Map creation and reclamation are governmental functions; permit-related exceptions apply; discretionary function exception applies as well.	State and employees immune; tort claims barred

Mullane v. Cent. Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306 (U.S. 1950) (notice must be reasonably calculated to apprise interested parties)
Mennonite Board of Missions v. Adams, 462 U.S. 791 (U.S. 1983) (minimum constitutional precondition for notice if owner’s identity is ascertainable)
Jones v. Flowers, 547 U.S. 220 (U.S. 2006) (reasonableness of post-failure follow-up notice; open-ended searches not required)
Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (U.S. 2009) (authorizes selecting prongs of qualified immunity analysis)
DeSpain v. Uphoff, 264 F.3d 965 (10th Cir. 2001) (immunity as an affirmative defense to §1983 actions)
York v. City of Las Cruces, 523 F.3d 1205 (10th Cir. 2008) (standard for reviewing qualified immunity on summary judgment)