Case Title: CLEVELAND HOLLOWAY V. WYOMING GAME AND FISH COMMISSION

Citation: 

Docket Number: 05-52

State: wyoming

Court: Wyoming Supreme Court

Date: 2005-11-18T00:00:00Z

Document:
CLEVELAND HOLLOWAY V. WYOMING GAME AND FISH COMMISSION2005 WY 144122 P.3d 959Case Number: 05-52Decided: 11/18/2005
OCTOBER 
TERM, A.D. 2005

 
 

CLEVELAND 
HOLLOWAY,

 
 
Appellant

(Petitioner),

 
 
v.

 
 

WYOMING GAME 
AND FISH COMMISSION,

 
 
Appellee

(Respondent).

 
 

Appeal 
from the DistrictCourtofSweetwaterCounty

The 
Honorable Nena James, Judge

 
 

Representing 
Appellant:

Cleveland 
Holloway, pro 
se.

 
 

Representing 
Appellee:

            
Patrick J. Crank, Attorney General; Jay Jerde, Deputy Attorney General; 
Thomas W. Rumpke, Senior Assistant Attorney General; and Eric K. Nelson, Senior 
Assistant Attorney General.

 
 
Before 
HILL, C.J., and GOLDEN, KITE, VOIGT, and BURKE, JJ.

 
 
            
KITE, Justice.

 
 
[¶1]      Cleveland 
Holloway was awarded a permit in 2003 to hunt bighorn sheep in area 23 east of 
the Green RiverLakes in the Bridger Wilderness area of western 
Wyoming.   After the season ended, Mr. 
Holloway requested a refund of his license fee and restoration of his preference 
points, claiming he was unable to hunt due to a forest fire in the area and a 
reduction in the bighorn sheep population.  The License Review Board (Board) denied 
his request.  Mr. Holloway appealed 
the Board's decision to the Game and Fish Commission (Commission), which upheld 
the denial.  Mr. Holloway then 
sought review of the agency action in district court.  The district court also affirmed.  He now appeals to this Court, and we also 
affirm.   

   

ISSUES

 
 
[¶2]      Mr. Holloway, who 
has appeared pro se throughout these 
proceedings, presents the following issues:

 
 
A.        Did 
the District Court err when it decided that I did not file my request for 
reimbursement or refund of my preference points on time?

 
 
B.        Did 
the District Court err when it decided that I actually hunted Area 23 during the 
2003 season?

 
 
The 
Commission presents the following issue:

 
 
Was the 
decision of the Wyoming Game and Fish Commission to deny Cleveland Holloway's 
request for a refund of his bighorn sheep license fee and to restore his 
preference points arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion or otherwise not 
in accordance with law?

 
 
FACTS

 
 
[¶3]      Mr. Holloway 
applied for and was awarded a license to hunt bighorn sheep in area 23 from 
September 1 to October 15, 2003.  In 
early August, prior to the opening date for hunting, a fire broke out at the 
base of Slide Lake and in the Clear Creek drainage in area 23, causing the 
United States Forest Service (U.S.F.S.) to close the Slide Lake and Clear Creek 
trails and impose a perimeter preventing public access to that portion of area 
23. 

 
 
[¶4]      On November 6 and 
7, 2003, Mr. Holloway attended a Commission meeting in Rock Springs.  He spoke to a department representative 
about obtaining a refund of his license fee and reinstatement of his preference 
points1 because he had not been able to 
adequately hunt area 23.  The 
representative advised him to send a letter to the Board.  By letter dated November 8, 2003, and 
received November 12, 2003, Mr. Holloway made a written request for 
reinstatement of his preference points.  Citing Chapter 44 § 22(e) of the 
Commission's rules and regulations, Mr. Holloway claimed he was entitled to 
reinstatement because he was unable to hunt in area 23 due to the fire closure 
and "the die off of a large number of Whisky Mountain Bighorn Sheep." 

 
 
[¶5]      On December 1, 
2003, the department informed Mr. Holloway that the Board had reviewed his 
request and was denying it for two reasons. First, the Board concluded Chapter 
44 § 22(e) allowed a partial refund where the majority of the public access to 
public lands was lost due to natural disaster such as fire.  Based upon information received from the 
U.S.F.S., the Board concluded a majority of area 23 was open for hunting despite 
the fire.  Because a majority of the 
area was open for hunting, the Board concluded a refund was not authorized under 
the rules. Additionally, the Board determined Mr. Holloway's request for a 
refund was not timely under Chapter 44 § 22(e) because it was not received by 
5:00 p.m. on the fifth business day following the opening date for hunting in 
area 23.  The department informed 
Mr. Holloway of his right to appeal the decision within ten days of receipt of 
the letter.

 
 
[¶6]      Mr. Holloway 
appealed the Board's decision to the Commission.  As grounds for restoration of his 
preference points, Mr. Holloway stated game and fish personnel had told him 
before the fire that bighorn sheep were located only in the northern one-third 
of area 23, not the southern two-thirds.  Because after the fire broke out the 
U.S.F.S. prohibited public access to the portion of area 23 where the sheep were 
located, Mr. Holloway argued the majority of public access to public lands was 
lost due to the fire within the meaning of the Commission's rules and 
regulations and he was entitled to restoration of his preference 
points.

 
 
[¶7]      The Commission 
heard Mr. Holloway's claim on February 13, 2004.  Both Mr. Holloway and the department 
presented evidence before the Commission. At the conclusion of the hearing, the 
majority of the commissioners voted to uphold the Board's decision denying Mr. 
Holloway's request.2  

 
 
[¶8]      Mr. Holloway 
filed a complaint for review of agency action in district court on March 12, 
2004.3  He alleged he was unable to adequately 
use his bighorn sheep hunting license because: 1) a significant amount of land 
within area 23 had been burned by fire just prior to and during the hunting 
season, and 2) he was informed by a forest service ranger that the remaining 
lands in area 23 had a very low hunter success rate.  Mr. Holloway filed his brief on July 8, 
2004, stating his reasons for believing the Commission and Board erred in 
denying his request.  In his brief 
to the district court, Mr. Holloway alleged for the first time that he was 
unable to adequately use his license due to injury and illness.  The Commission filed its responsive brief 
and, on January 5, 2005, the district court issued a decision letter in which it 
affirmed the Commission's rulings.  In the final paragraph, the district 
court stated:

 
 
            
The Commission's decision denying Holloway's request for a refund and 
reinstatement of preference points is supported by substantial evidence and is 
neither arbitrary nor capricious.  Holloway hunted on his bighorn sheep 
license in area 23 and failed to timely file his refund request. 

 
 
STANDARD 
OF REVIEW

 
 
[¶9]      Both Mr. Holloway 
and the department presented evidence before the Commission. In administrative 
appeals where both parties submitted evidence, our review is limited to 
application of the substantial evidence test.  Kunkle v. State ex rel. Wyo. Workers' Safety 
and Comp. Div., 2005 WY 49, ¶ 8, 109 P.3d 887, 889 (Wyo. 2005).  We have stated the substantial evidence 
test as follows:

 
 
"In 
reviewing findings of fact, we examine the entire record to determine whether 
there is substantial evidence to support an agency's findings.  If the agency's decision is supported by 
substantial evidence, we cannot properly substitute our judgment for that of the 
agency and must uphold the findings on appeal.  Substantial evidence is relevant 
evidence which a reasonable mind might accept in support of the agency's 
conclusions.  It is more than a 
scintilla of evidence." 

 
 

Id. 

 
 
[¶10]   When the factual findings are found 
to be sufficient under the substantial evidence test, we may be required to 
apply the arbitrary and capricious standard to catch other agency action that 
prejudiced a party's substantial right or was contrary to other W.A.P.A. review 
standards.  Id.

            

DISCUSSION

 
 
[¶11]   In his pro se brief, Mr. Holloway sets forth a 
variety of reasons why this case should be remanded to the district court for 
entry of an order requiring the Commission to reimburse his license fee and 
reinstate his preference points.  Stated succinctly, he claims that for 
various reasons he was not able to hunt bighorn sheep in 2003 and the Commission 
ought to refund the money and preference points he expended for the unused 
hunting license.  The reasons Mr. 
Holloway gives in his brief to this Court for being unable to hunt are: 1) the 
area within area 23 where bighorn sheep could be found was closed due to the 
fire; 2) the outfitter he hired to go into area 23 from the south refused to go 
into the closed area and the trip was aborted because of a winter storm; and, 3) 
torn cartilage in his knee and an enlarged and infected prostate limited his 
ability to hunt. 

 
 
[¶12]   From our review of the record, it 
appears only one of these reasons was presented before the Commission.  Although Mr. Holloway raised the issue of 
his medical problems in his appeal to the district court, he did not raise it 
before the Commission.  It is 
well-established that claims raised for the first time on appeal will not be 
considered. Davis v. City of Cheyenne, 2004 WY 43, ¶ 26, 88 P.3d 481, 
490 (Wyo. 2004).  Therefore, we 
limit our review to Mr. Holloway's claim that he was unable to hunt because the 
U.S.F.S. would not allow entry into the portion of area 23 where bighorn sheep 
were located.

 
 
[¶13]   Chapter 44, § 22(e) of the 
Commission's rules and regulations sets out the procedure and requirements for 
obtaining a license fee refund and restoration of preference points.  The provision in effect at all times 
relevant to Mr. Holloway's claim stated as follows:

 
 
(e) When 
the Department has determined a majority of the hunting opportunity has been 
lost in [a] . . . bighorn sheep . . . limited quota hunt area due to the 
administrative actions of the state or federal government in closing the 
majority, but not all, of the public access to public lands due to a natural 
disaster, including but not necessarily limited to, wildland fires, the holder 
of a limited quota . . . bighorn sheep . . . license for said limited quota hunt 
area may request a fifty percent (50%) refund of the license fee from the 
Department. In the event the Department determines one-hundred percent (100%) of 
the hunting opportunity and access to the hunt area has been closed due to a 
natural disaster, the holder of a limited quota . . . bighorn sheep . . . 
license may request a one-hundred percent (100%) license fee refund. . . . If 
the holder of a bighorn sheep . . . license requests a refund, the Department 
shall restore the individual's preference point(s), including any preference 
point earned for the current year. To qualify for consideration of a license fee 
refund, the license holder shall submit the request for refund in writing to 
Headquarters, Fiscal Administration. The request, along with the unused intact 
license, must be received by the Department headquarters by 5:00 p.m. on the 
fifth (5th) business day following the opening 
date for the regular hunting season . . . . Refunds shall be denied in any 
circumstance where the license holder hunted on the license after the earliest 
regular hunting season date as listed in the current Commission regulation for 
the species for which the license is valid.

 
 

Wyoming Game 
and Fish Commission Rules and Regulations, 
Chapter 44, § 22(e) (July 29, 2003).4  

 
 
[¶14]   On the basis of this regulatory 
provision, the Board denied Mr. Holloway's request because it concluded the 
majority of the hunt area was open for hunting during the season and his request 
was not received on the fifth day following the opening date of the season in 
his area.  The minutes of the 
Commission meeting do not include any discussion of the Commission's reasoning 
but reflect only that a majority of the commissioners voted to support the 
Board's determination.  The district 
court's decision letter concluded that the Commission's decision was supported 
by substantial evidence and was not arbitrary or capricious because the 
undisputed evidence showed that Mr. Holloway hunted on his license during the 
September 1 through October 15, 2003, season and failed to timely file his 
refund request. 

 
 
[¶15]   We conclude substantial evidence 
supported the determination that Mr. Holloway failed to timely file his request 
as provided in Chapter 44, § 22(e).  That failure alone provided an adequate 
basis for denying his request.  As 
reflected in the quotation above, the regulation in effect at the time required 
requests for refunds to be received by department headquarters by 5:00 p.m. on 
the fifth business day following the opening date for the regular hunting 
season.  The evidence was undisputed 
that the regular hunting season for area 23 in the year 2003 began on September 
1 and ended October 15. The fifth business day following September 1, 2003, was 
September 8, 2003.  The department 
received Mr. Holloway's written request on November 12, 2003, over two months 
after the date the regulation required it to be received.  Substantial evidence supported the 
Board's determination that Mr. Holloway's request was untimely.  Pursuant to Chapter 44, § 22(e), his 
request did not qualify for consideration of a license 
refund.

 
 
[¶16]   In his brief to this Court, Mr. 
Holloway asserts he had no notice of the time limitation for making the 
request.  He contends there were two 
sets of rules, one made public and one kept internally.  He makes a perfunctory claim that this 
constitutes fraud and misrepresentation.  He makes this claim for the first time on 
appeal, without citation to authority or presentation of cogent argument.  Therefore, we decline to address his 
assertion. 

 
 
[¶17]   Mr. Holloway also makes the 
argument that what happened was simply unfair.  He asserts that he waited years to get a 
bighorn sheep license, finally got one in a year that his efforts to hunt were 
thwarted and it will likely be many more years before he will have earned 
sufficient preference points to receive another license.  He argues that he paid good money for the 
license and did not get the benefit of his bargain.  He asserts there ought to be some 
provision for a rain check or a special thirty day pass under circumstances like 
his.  Again, he cites no authority 
and presents no cogent argument in support of these assertions. 

 
 
[¶18]   We are not unsympathetic to Mr. 
Holloway's claim.  The record 
suggests he researched the area prior to the fire and, on the basis of what he 
learned, planned to hunt in the area that later was closed due to the fire. 
 His efforts to hunt in another part 
of area 23 apparently were thwarted by weather.  However, there is evidence in the record 
suggesting that even before the fire, after hearing the bighorn sheep population 
was down in the area, Mr. Holloway considered returning his license and 
requesting a refund.  It is also 
undisputed that Mr. Holloway knew about the fire and its location almost 
immediately after it started in early August, nearly a month before opening day 
of the season.  His claim that he 
was not aware of the time requirements contained in Chapter 44 § 22(e) is 
undermined by the fact that he cited the provision in his initial letter to the 
Board, basing his argument that he was entitled to reinstatement of his 
preference points on the very provision he now contends was not available to 
him.  The provision required Mr. 
Holloway's request for a refund to be received by the department by September 8. 
Mr. Holloway had several opportunities to request a refund prior to that date 
and chose not to do so.  The 
Commission's determination was supported by substantial evidence and we find no 
basis for reversal.               

 
 
[¶19]   Affirmed.

 
 

FOOTNOTES

 
 

1The 
preference point system, provided for in Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 23-1-703(b) 
(LexisNexis 2003) and Chapter 44 § 18 of the Commission's rules and regulations, 
is a procedure whereby the department assigns points to each license applicant 
based upon the number of years the applicant has unsuccessfully applied for a 
license.  At least seventy-five 
percent of the big game and trophy licenses issued for a particular hunt area 
are randomly selected through a preference point drawing from among the group of 
applicants with the largest number of points.  Upon drawing a bighorn sheep license, an 
applicant's preference points are deleted and he is prohibited from applying for 
or receiving another license for bighorn sheep for another five 
years.

   

2The 
Commission minutes reflect that Commissioner Fleming voted no because "Mr. 
Holloway was only asking for preference points back, and she felt there was 
still some question about the extent of the fire in the hunt area." 

 
 

3Pursuant to 
W.R.A.P. 12.03, an appeal to district court from an agency determination is 
properly captioned a petition for review.  Although Mr. Holloway's pleading was 
entitled "Complaint for Review", we treat it as a petition for review. 

 
 

4Chapter 44, 
§ 22, of the Commission's rules and regulations was modified on August 27, 2004 
and September 22, 2005. Among other changes, the current regulation requires 
requests for a refund to be submitted during the calendar year for which the 
license is valid accompanied by a sworn statement that the licensee did not 
exercise any hunting privileges granted by the license. The current regulation 
allows for refunds in the case of natural disasters only where 100% of the 
hunting opportunity or access is closed to the public. Section 22(e) provides 
that there is no right of appeal to the Commission from decisions by the 
department under Section 22.