Case Title: ELK HORN RANCH, INC. v. THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF CROOK COUNTY, WYOMING and CRAGO RANCH TRUST

Citation: 

Docket Number: S-09-0137

State: wyoming

Court: Wyoming Supreme Court

Date: 2010-04-22T00:00:00Z

Document:
ELK HORN RANCH, INC. v. THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF CROOK COUNTY, WYOMING and CRAGO RANCH TRUST2010 WY 49229 P.3d 960Case Number: No. S-09-0137Decided: 04/22/2010

APRIL 
TERM, A.D. 2010

 
 
ELK 
HORN RANCH, INC.,

 
 
Appellant

(Petitioner),

 
 
v.

 
 
THE 
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF CROOK COUNTY, WYOMING,

 
 
Appellee

(Respondent),

 
 
and

 
 
CRAGO 
RANCH TRUST,

 
 
Appellee/Intervenor

(Applicant).

 
 
Appeal 
from the District Court of Crook County

The 
Honorable John R. Perry, Judge

 
 
Representing 
Appellant:

John 
M. Daly and Matthew R. Sorenson, Daly, Davidson & Sorenson, LLC, Gillette, 
Wyoming.

 
 
Representing 
Appellee:

Joseph 
M. Baron, Crook County Attorney.

 
 
Representing 
Appellee/Intervenor:

            
Mark 
L. Hughes, Hughes Law Office, Sundance, Wyoming.

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

 
 
BURKE, 
Justice.

 
 

[¶1]        
Elk 
Horn Ranch, Inc., appeals the district court's sua sponte dismissal of its petition for 
review of a decision by the Crook County Board of Commissioners.  Because the district court did not 
follow the procedures required when dismissing a case sua sponte, we will reverse and 
remand.

 
 
ISSUE

 
 

[¶2]      
The 
single dispositive issue is whether the district court erred in dismissing the 
petition for review.

 
 
FACTS

 
 

[¶3]        
In 
November of 2003, the Crago Ranch Trust filed an application with the Board of 
Commissioners of Crook County for a private road across property owned by Elk 
Horn Ranch.  The Board established 
the road and awarded damages.  Elk 
Horn Ranch appealed that decision to the district court, and then to this 
Court.  We affirmed the decision 
establishing the road, but reversed the decision on damages.  Elk Horn Ranch, Inc. v. Board of County 
Comm'rs of Crook County, 2007 WY 158, 168 P.3d 845 (Wyo. 2007).  In that opinion, we addressed the 
propriety of naming the Board as respondent:

 
 
Under 
the circumstances of the instant case, we hold that the Board acted principally 
as an adjudicatory body and probably should not have filled the role it has thus 
far played in these proceedings in the district court and in this Court.   We do not consider this a circumstance 
that deprives this Court of its jurisdiction to resolve this appeal and so we 
proceed to respond to the issues raised by [Elk Horn Ranch], cautioning that 
both the district court and similarly situated parties need to be more attentive 
to the concerns we expressed above.

 
 

Id., 
¶¶ 9, 10, 168 P.3d  at 850.

 
 

[¶4]        
After 
remand, the Board decided on a different calculation of damages.  Elk Horn Ranch once again appealed to 
the district court, and once again named the Board as respondent.  Of its own accord, the district court 
issued an order dismissing the petition for review, with this 
explanation:

 
 
As 
the parties are aware, this is the second occasion upon which this matter has 
come before the district court.  The 
previous case was appealed to the Wyoming Supreme Court.  There, the Court 
determined that the Board of Commissioners was not a proper party because the 
Board was not acting in the defense of its regulatory powers.  The Court 
further held that it was not deprived of jurisdiction to resolve the appeal, and 
did so.  However, the Wyoming 
Supreme Court "caution[ed] that both the district court and similarly situated 
parties need to be more attentive to" this issue.

 
 
In 
reviewing the Petition, this court finds that, once again, the Board of 
Commissioners was acting principally as an adjudicatory body in making its 
determination of the amount of damages that should be paid to Petitioner for the 
private road established across Elk Horn Ranch, Inc. property.  Therefore, this court finds that the 
Board of Commissioners is not a proper party to the administrative review, and 
the Petition should be dismissed.

 
 
Elk 
Horn Ranch appeals the district court's decision.

 
 
STANDARD 
OF REVIEW

 
 

[¶5]        
We 
review de novo a district court's 
decision to dismiss a case.  Jenkins v. Miller, 2008 WY 45, 
¶ 20, 180 P.3d 925, 932 (Wyo. 2008).

 
 
DISCUSSION

 
 

[¶6]        
There 
are procedures that must be followed when dismissing a case sua sponte:

 
 
The 
leading federal decision on sua 
sponte dismissals under F.R.C.P. 12(b)(6) is Tingler v. Marshall, 716 F.2d 1109 (6th Cir. 1983).  The Tingler court reviewed the sua sponte dismissal of a claim on its 
merits, so federal jurisdiction was not in question.  The court found four reasons why a sua sponte dismissal under F.R.C.P. 
12(b)(6) is not favored.  First, the 
action places the court in the role of a proponent rather than an independent 
observer.  Second, plaintiffs are 
prejudiced because, unlike when a motion to dismiss is filed by a defendant, the 
plaintiff is given no opportunity to amend the complaint or make legal arguments 
against dismissal.  Pro se 
plaintiffs, unskilled in legal pleadings, are more likely to suffer acute 
prejudice.  Third, dismissal without 
service of process and notice is unfair to defendants because the sua sponte action of the court deprives 
the defendants of the opportunity to participate in the litigation process and 
places them in the position of having to choose:  whether to not participate in an appeal 
and risk an adverse decision; or, whether to participate in the appeal and make 
arguments based upon matters not in the factual record.  Fourth, the sua sponte dismissal ultimately wastes 
judicial resources.  The dismissal 
creates an opportunity for appeal based upon an incomplete record of pleadings 
and orders resulting in an inability to make a factual decision on the merits 
and limiting the appellate court to decisions on broad legal grounds.  Tingler, 716 F.2d  at 1111.  

 
 
Using 
its supervisory power, the Tingler 
court outlined a five-step procedure for dismissal of complaints, sua sponte:  

 
 
(1) 
allow service of the complaint upon the defendant; (2) notify all parties of 
[the court's] intent to dismiss the complaint; (3) give the plaintiff a chance 
to either amend his complaint or respond to the reasons stated by the 
district court in its notice of intended sua sponte dismissal; (4) give 
the defendant a chance to respond or file an answer or motions; and (5) if the 
claim is dismissed, state [the court's] reasons for the 
dismissal.

 
 

Id. 
at 1112.  

 
 
In 
an exercise of this court's supervisory powers, Wyo. Const. art. 5, § 2, we 
adopt the federal approach to sua sponte dismissals under Rule 12(b)(6) 
including the five-step process outlined in Tingler. 

 
 

Osborn 
v. Emporium Videos, 
848 P.2d 237, 241-42 (Wyo. 1993) (footnotes omitted).1  The reasoning and policy considerations 
set out in Osborn 
and Tingler also apply to 
administrative appeals.  We take 
this opportunity to clarify that the five-step process outlined in Tingler and adopted in Osborn is also required for a sua sponte dismissal of an 
administrative appeal.

 
 

[¶7]        
The 
district court did not follow the five-step process.  It did not notify the parties of its 
intent to dismiss, or give the parties a chance to respond.  We therefore reverse the district 
court's decision and remand this case for proceedings consistent with this 
opinion.

 
 
FOOTNOTES

 
 

1Pursuant 
to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), the procedures set forth in Tingler may 
no longer be required in certain limited circumstances not present here.  
See Presler v. Michigan Dep't of Corrections, 1997 U.S. App. LEXIS 
30425 (6th Cir. 
1997).