Orr v. US EPA
1:17-cv-00141
W.D.N.C.Jun 5, 2017Background
- Plaintiffs (residents and concerned parties) sued EPA, USFS, USFWS, French Broad Electric (FBE), and FBE GM Jeff Loven seeking to stop spraying EPA‑approved herbicides on/near Roan Mountain to protect endangered species and alleged sacred/religious interests.
- Plaintiffs filed a Verified Complaint and an emergency TRO/preliminary injunction on June 1, 2017; their earliest written notice to defendants was a May 26, 2017 letter to FBE/Loven (copies to agencies).
- Plaintiffs asserted claims under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (First Amendment/religious rights, health, property, sacred way of life).
- The court analyzed subject‑matter jurisdiction and statutory prerequisites for ESA citizen suits, focusing on the mandatory 60‑day notice requirement before filing suit.
- The court also reviewed the § 1983 claims for frivolousness and whether private defendants could be treated as state actors.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 60‑day ESA notice prerequisite | Plaintiffs argued immediate harm and sought emergency relief despite short notice | Defendants argued plaintiffs failed to satisfy the ESA's 60‑day notice to the Secretary and alleged violators | Court: Plaintiffs failed to provide 60 days' notice; ESA claims dismissed for lack of subject‑matter jurisdiction (without prejudice) |
| § 1983 liability for private defendants | Plaintiffs claimed constitutional/religious harms caused by FBE/Loven's spraying plan | Defendants argued § 1983 requires state action and does not apply to federal agencies | Court: § 1983 claims against FBE/Loven frivolous for lack of state action; dismissed with prejudice; § 1983 cannot be used against federal actors |
| Sua sponte dismissal authority | Plaintiffs opposed sua sponte dismissal of frivolous claims | Defendants argued court may dismiss frivolous claims on its own motion | Court: Exercised inherent authority to dismiss frivolous § 1983 claims sua sponte |
| Remedy requested (TRO/PI) | Plaintiffs sought emergency injunctive relief to prevent imminent spraying | Defendants argued procedural defects and lack of jurisdiction defeated equitable relief | Court: Did not reach injunction merits because procedural defects required dismissal |
Key Cases Cited
- Hallstrom v. Tillamook County, 493 U.S. 20 (interpreting mandatory 60‑day notice requirement) (establishes similar notice rule as jurisdictional condition)
- Southwest Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. United States Bureau of Reclamation, 143 F.3d 515 (9th Cir.) (failure to comply with ESA 60‑day notice is absolute bar to suit)
- Friends of Animals v. Ashe, 808 F.3d 900 (D.C. Cir.) (60‑day notice is mandatory condition precedent for ESA suits)
- DeBauche v. Trani, 191 F.3d 499 (4th Cir.) (state‑action test for § 1983 liability of private actors)
- Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319 (frivolous complaint standard — lacks arguable basis in law or fact)
- Mallard v. United States Dist. Ct. for S.D. of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296 (court’s inherent authority to dismiss frivolous suits)
- Wheeldin v. Wheeler, 373 U.S. 647 (§ 1983 does not apply to federal actors)