Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-00770/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-00770-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 290
Nature of Suit: Other Real Property Actions
Cause of Action: 28:2201 Declaratory Judgment

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

 Jimmy C. Chisum, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

United States Department of the Interior,

et al., 

Defendants. 

United States of America, 

Plaintiff,

vs.

Jimmy C. Chisum, et al., 

Defendants.

_________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CV 05-2830-PHX-JAT (Lead)

CV 05-3616-PHX-JAT (Cons)

CV 06-0770-PHX-JAT (Cons)

ORDER

Pending before the Court are Mr. Chisum’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. #

22), the United States’s Cross Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. #26), Mr. Chisum’s

Motion to Strike All Pleadings in Opposition to Summary Judgment and for Default (Doc.

#30), and the United States’s Supplemental Memorandum Concerning Due Process (Doc.

#33). The Court now rules on the motions.

Case 2:06-cv-00770-JAT Document 11 Filed 11/01/07 Page 1 of 11
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 - 2 -

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

In November of 1994, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) investigated a

complaint from a citizen regarding Mr. Chisum and his family’s occupation of public lands

pursuant to unpatented mining claims. On December 13, 1994, BLM issued a Notice to

Chisum explaining that his residential occupancy and surface disturbance violated applicable

regulations. The violations included: blading a road, which destroyed native vegetation;

occupied mobile homes and a motor home; trenching; installation of a septic system; fenced

in areas containing turkeys, chickens, and geese; penned goats; and various trailers and

vehicles. Mr. Chisum responded to the Notice with various arguments regarding the authority

of the BLM agents, the BLM, and the United States. Chisum admitted that he, his wife

Donna, his daughter, and others were occupying the mining claims.

A March 1, 2001 Field Inspection showed that the mining claims were still being

occupied by the Chisums without any mining activity occurring. Field agents inspected the

occupancy again on March 13, 2002, and took photographs. Mr. Chisum again questioned

the authority of the BLM, the United States, and its officers to manage the public lands. The

BLM performed another field inspection with photographs on September 18, 2002. 

When questioned about his mining activity, Mr. Chisum claimed that he was testing

a new theory for extracting gold using magnetic resonance to liquify the gold and bring it to

the surface. The theory had not met with any success. Nor had Mr. Chisum filed a Mining

Notice or Plan of Operation with the BLM with regard to his mining claims.

The BLM sent decision letters of Nonconcurrence and Permanent Cessation Order for

the Halcyon Lode, Mommy’s Treasure, and Daddy’s Treasure mining claims. The Interior

Board of Land Appeals (IBLA) upheld those decisions over the written protestations of Mr.

Chisum. The IBLA held that the Chisums’ occupancy and use of the mining claims was not

incident to mining activity as required by applicable “use and occupancy regulations,” 43

C.F.R. §§3715, 3715.2, 3715.2-1. The IBLA also noted that Chisum had failed to file a notice

or otherwise comply with surface management regulations as required to conduct mining

Case 2:06-cv-00770-JAT Document 11 Filed 11/01/07 Page 2 of 11
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

Despite Mr. Chisum’s protestations to the contrary, the federal government has the

authority to act outside the District of Columbia and “territorial” areas.

- 3 -

operations, 43 C.F.R. 3809.

Mr. Chisum, who currently is serving approximately eight years in prison for tax

evasion, filed two separate cases appealing from the IBLA’s decisions. The United States of

America has filed a separate action against Mr. Chisum for use of public lands in violation of

regulations and for unlawful occupancy. The United States asks the Court for declarative and

injunctive relief to enforce the decisions of the BLM Phoenix office, as affirmed by the IBLA.

Both Mr. Chisum and the United States have moved for summary judgment. 

II. ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION

Mr. Chisum’s motion for summary judgment does not even discuss whether his

residential occupancy of the mining claims was incidental to mining operations, as required

by regulations. Instead, his motion focuses on frivolous arguments regarding the proper

extent of authority of the BLM, the IBLA, the Attorney General’s Office, the United States,

and this Court. Further, Mr. Chisum has not followed the rules for filing and supporting a

motion for summary judgment. His Statement of Uncontroverted Facts does not cite to record

evidence as required by local rule. Rather, the Uncontroverted “Facts” basically recite Mr.

Chisum’s unorthodox legal theories. Procedural deficiencies aside, Mr. Chisum’s motion for

summary judgment fails because all parties involved had and/or have the requisite authority.1

A. Authority

The United States Constitution gives Congress the generally unlimited right to regulate

all public lands, including mines. Sierra Club v. Hickel, 433 F.2d 1267, 1268 (9th Cir. 1970).

Congress has delegated this power to the Secretary of the Interior. 43 U.S.C. §1457; Davis

v. Nelson, 329 F.2d 840, 843 (9th Cir. 1964). More specifically, the Bureau of Land

Management, an agency under the Department of the Interior, has the power to regulate the

location, occupation, and patenting of mining claims on public lands. Davis, 329 F.2d at 843.

This authority is plenary. Id. (quoting Best v. Humboldt Placer Mining Co., 371 U.S. 334,

Case 2:06-cv-00770-JAT Document 11 Filed 11/01/07 Page 3 of 11
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 - 4 -

336 (1963)). Plaintiff does not have a legitimate argument that the Department of the Interior,

through the BLM and IBLA, lacks the authority to investigate and regulate his mining claims.

Nor does Plaintiff have a plausible argument that the Attorney General does not have

the authority to represent the United States in this action. The Attorney General’s office has

the statutory authority to prosecute civil actions that concern the United States. 28 U.S.C.

§547. More importantly for this case, 43 U.S.C. §1733(b) provides that the Attorney General,

at the request of the Secretary of the Interior, may institute a civil action for injunctive or other

relief to prevent the unauthorized use of public lands. The Attorney General certainly has the

right to represent the government in this case.

Finally, this Court has jurisdiction over the case. The Court has jurisdiction to review

IBLA decisions pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1331. Andrus v. Charlestone Stone Products Co., 436

U.S. 604, 608 n.6 (1978). The Court also has jurisdiction over all civil actions, suits, or

proceedings commenced by the Untied States or any agency or officer thereof. 28 U.S.C.

§1345. The Court unquestionably has the power to decide this consolidated case.

B. IBLA Decision

Standard of Review

The Court’s review of an IBLA decision is limited. Akootchook v. U.S., 271 F.3d

1160, 1164 (9th Cir. 2001). The Court will reverse only “if the decision is arbitrary,

capricious, not supported by substantial evidence, or contrary to law,” and it “carefully

searches the entire record to determine whether it contains such relevant evidence as a

reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion and whether it

demonstrates that the decision was based on a consideration of relevant factors.” Id. 

By statute, any mining claim located after 1955, “shall not be used, prior to issuance

of patent therefore, for any purposes other than prospecting, mining or processing operations

and uses reasonably incident thereto.” 30 U.S.C. §612(a); see also 43 C.F.R. §3715.2.

Congress enacted the statute to confine the use of mining claims to mining purposes only and

to curb occupancy abuses that had developed. United States v. Nogueira, 403 F.2d 816, 823

Case 2:06-cv-00770-JAT Document 11 Filed 11/01/07 Page 4 of 11
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 - 5 -

(9th Cir. 1968). Mere prospecting of an unpatented mining claim will rarely, if ever, justify

continuous residence in a substantial structure. United States v. Allen, 578 F.2d 236, 237-38

(9th Cir. 1978). This Court has the power to determine the lawfulness of Chisum’s occupancy

without regard to the validity of the mining claim itself. Nogueira, 403 F.2d at 825.

In his appeal from the IBLA decision, Mr. Chisum argues, among other things, that the

federal government can act only within a narrow zone, that the BLM agents had no authority

to investigate his mining claims and order him to vacate, and that the IBLA had no authority

to affirm that decision. But he does not argue that his occupancy of the claims was

“reasonably incident” to mining activities. The administrative record demonstrates that he

cannot successfully make that argument.

Mr. Chisum, his family, and others basically have built a compound on the mining

claims – complete with mobile homes, trailers, a septic system, and goats, geese, and

chickens. Practically, the only thing missing from the occupancy was any type of significant

mining activity or any valuable minerals needing protection. BLM made several visits to the

claims and took photographs and never discovered any discernible mining activity or

preparation for mining activity. Mr. Chisum told the BLM that he was testing a new theory

for extracting gold using magnetic resonance to liquify the gold and bring it to the surface.

The theory had not produced any positive results, and geologist Jeff Garrett found the theory

unconventional, not proven, and highly suspect. 

The administrative record supports the BLM and IBLA’s decision that Mr. Chisum’s

surface occupation of the claims was not reasonably incident to mining activity. In addition,

Mr. Chisum failed to file a required Notice and otherwise comply with surface management

regulations, 43 C.F.R. §§3809.21 & 3809.300-336. As such, the BLM had the authority to

order Mr. Chisum to cease all use of the property and to reclaim the surface. See, e.g., 43

C.F.R. §§3715.4-3 & 3715.7-2. The Court therefore affirms the decisions of the IBLA in

Rivers Edge Trust, Jimmy Chisum, Trustee, 166 IBLA 297 (2005) (Halcyon Lode Mining

Claim) and in AZA-28895, IBLA dockets 2003-152 and 2005-272 (October 18, 2005)

Case 2:06-cv-00770-JAT Document 11 Filed 11/01/07 Page 5 of 11
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

Mr. Chisum makes other statements in his Complaint, but these “statements,” for lack

of a better word, do not rise to the level of stating a valid cause of action.

- 6 -

(Mommy’s Treasure and Daddy’s Treasure Association Placer Claims). 

Mr. Chisum has not created a question of fact on the government’s case for injunctive

relief. He has cited no record evidence for the proposition that his occupancy is reasonably

incident to a mining operation. All the record evidence indicates that Mr. Chisum and his

family maintained a permanent residence on the claims without engaging in any significant

mining activity. Because any use of an unpatented mining claim that is not reasonably

incident to a mining operation is unlawful, 30 U.S.C. §612(a), the United States is entitled to

injunctive relief. See Nogueira, 403 F.2d at 825 (“Thus the government can prohibit

occupation of a mining claim . . . where the land is not being used for mining purposes,

regardless of whether or not the claim was valid.”). 

C. PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS

Mr. Chisum basically has alleged two theories in his Complaints: 1) that the BLM and

the IBLA acted without authority and improperly in finding that he and his associates must

clear off the inactive mining claims and 2) that the IBLA issued its decisions in denial of due

process.2

 The Court has held that the administrative record amply supports the IBLA

decisions and that the United States has the right to order Mr. Chisum to end his

nonconforming use and reclaim the land. The Court now will turn to Mr. Chisum’s

procedural due process claim.

Mr. Chisum alleged that the IBLA denied him due process by not granting him an

evidentiary hearing before issuing its decision. The record reveals that although the BLM

made several visits to the mining claims and spoke with Mr. Chisum and that Mr. Chisum

submitted multiple written objections, no hearing took place. The government has not argued

that Mr. Chisum failed to request a hearing. The Court therefore will assume for the purposes

of this Order that Mr. Chisum properly made such a request.

The pertinent administrative regulations allow for an appeal from the BLM’s

Case 2:06-cv-00770-JAT Document 11 Filed 11/01/07 Page 6 of 11
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

“Either an appellant or an adverse party may, if he desires a hearing to present

evidence on an issue of fact, request that the case be assigned to an administrative law judge

for such a hearing. Such a request must be made in writing and filed with the Board within

30 days after answer is due and a copy of the request should be served on the opposing party

in the case. The allowance of a request for hearing is within the discretion of the Board, and

the Board may, on its own motion, refer any case to an administrative law judge for a hearing

on an issue of fact. If a hearing is ordered, the Board will specify the issues upon which the

hearing is to be held and the hearing will be held in accordance with §§4.430 to 4.439, and

the general rules in Subpart B of this part.” 43 C.F.R. §4.415.

- 7 -

determination of nonconforming use to the IBLA. 43 C.F.R. §3715.9. The IBLA then has

the discretion to order a hearing before an ALJ on any issues of fact. 43 C.F.R. §4.415.3

 No

statute or regulation requires an evidentiary hearing on the issue of whether occupancy is

incident to mining.

The IBLA has considerable discretion to order a hearing. Catron v. Babbitt, 955

F.Supp. 627, 633 (W.D. Va. 1997). But the IBLA should grant a hearing when significant

factual or legal issues remain and the record without a hearing would not suffice for resolving

the issues. Stickelman v. U.S., 563 F.2d 413, 417 (9th Cir. 1977). When no fact issues exist,

the IBLA does not need “to perform [a] meaningless task[],” and hold a plenary, adversary

administrative proceeding involving evidence, cross-examination of witnesses, etc. U.S. v.

Consol. Mines & Smelting Co., 455 F.2d 432, 453 (9th Cir. 1971).

The Court finds that remanding to the IBLA for a hearing would accomplish nothing.

No significant factual or legal issues remain in this case. Both at the administrative level and

before this Court, Mr. Chisum has argued that the federal government has no right to the

public land and that its agents cannot tell him what to do with his mining claims. But he has

never presented any evidence or arguments to refute the BLM and IBLA’s findings of

nonconforming use. He has conceded that no significant mining activity was taking place

on his claims. Mr. Chisum simply maintains that the federal government has no business

messing with his mining operations or lack thereof. The Court finds that in this case, where

the appellant has presented no significant factual or legal issues, the IBLA did not abuse its

Case 2:06-cv-00770-JAT Document 11 Filed 11/01/07 Page 7 of 11
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 - 8 -

discretion or deny Mr. Chisum due process by not holding an oral, evidentiary hearing. See

Cumberland Reclamation Co. v. Secretary, Dept. of the Interior, 925 F.2d 164, 168 (6th Cir.

1991).

The Court is aware of Adams v. Witner, 271 F.2d 29 (9th Cir. 1958) and Collord v.

U.S. Dept. of the Interior, 154 F.3d 933 (9th Cir. 1998), which relied in part on Adams. The

Adams case involved a jurisdictional question. The Adams court held that the Administrative

Procedure Act applied to the case and that the district court had jurisdiction to review the

agency decision. Adams, 271 F.2d at 33. In reaching that holding, the court stated, “There

is no statute relative to hearings such as that here involved. But as the appellant’s right to his

mining claims was a property right, it follows that the requirements of due process necessitate

that he have a hearing before he can be deprived of that property right.” Id. 

The Adams case is distinguishable in two respects. First, the underlying agency

decision in Adams dealt with a mining patent application and the contest thereof, not a

determination of whether certain uses of an unpatented mining claim were reasonably incident

to a mining operation. The regulations provide different rules and procedures for the different

interests involved in those proceedings. Second, the Adams opinion does not indicate a

complete lack of factual or plausible legal issues, like in the present case. 

Similarly, Collord is distinguishable. Collord involved contest proceedings over the

validity of a claim and a patent application. 154 F.3d at 934. Unlike the regulations at issue

here regarding conforming use, the regulations pertinent to the contest proceedings in Collord

required a formal administrative hearing. Id. at 935. Moreover, the actual holding of the

Collord case dealt with whether the Equal Access to Justice Act, 5 U.S.C. §504, applied to

the claim owners’ petition for fees, not a procedural due process argument.

We agree with the Ninth Circuit that due process does not require an oral evidentiary

hearing where, as here, “there is no record evidence showing, nor reason to believe that [Mr.

Chisum] [is] . . . unable to pursue [his] claims by filing written pleadings . . . .” Clouser v.

Espy, 42 F.3d 1522, 1540 (9th Cir. 1994). That is especially true where, because the mining

Case 2:06-cv-00770-JAT Document 11 Filed 11/01/07 Page 8 of 11
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 - 9 -

claimant has presented no issues of fact and no colorable legal arguments, an oral hearing

would place an undue burden on the government’s resources. Cf. Silas v. Babbitt, 96 F.3d

355, 358 (9th Cir. 1996) (“Requiring an oral hearing in those cases where the face of the

application shows that the [land allotment] applicant is not qualified would place an undue

burden on the government’s resources.”). The Court holds that under the circumstances of

this case, Mr. Chisum has not demonstrated that the BLM’s detailed administrative

procedures, which include provisions for an administrative appeal, do not conform with

procedural due process. See Clouser, 42 F.3d at 1540-41.

The Court upholds the decisions of the BLM and the IBLA. The Court affirms that the

administrative record supports their findings that Mr. Chisum’s residential occupancy of the

mining claims was not reasonably incident to a mining operation. Additionally, the United

States has demonstrated that Mr. Chisum’s use violates the statutes and regulations and that

the government has the right to force Mr. Chisum to abandon that use and reclaim the area.

The Court further finds that the detailed administrative procedures available to Mr. Chisum

provided him with due process. The Court will therefore deny Mr. Chisum’s motion for

summary judgment and grant the government’s cross motion for summary judgment.

D. MOTION TO STRIKE

Mr. Chisum has filed a Motion to Strike All Pleadings in Opposition to Summary

Judgment and for Default (Doc. #30). Mr. Chisum makes the same lack of authority

arguments in support of his motion to strike that he made in his motion for summary

judgment. The Court already has rejected those arguments. Mr. Chisum has not made any

other valid arguments for striking the United States’s responses or for entering default. The

Court therefore will deny the motion to strike and for default.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED DENYING Mr. Chisum’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. #

22).

Case 2:06-cv-00770-JAT Document 11 Filed 11/01/07 Page 9 of 11
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 - 10 -

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED DENYING Mr. Chisum’s Motion to Strike All Pleadings

in Opposition to Summary Judgment and for Default (Doc. #30).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED GRANTING the United States’s Cross Motion for

Summary Judgment (Doc. #26).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that:

1. Mr. Jimmy C. Chisum, individually and as Trustee, and any and all persons acting

in concert with him or in association with him, are permanently enjoined from occupying the

lands that are the subject of this action, including the Mommy’s Treasure and Daddy’s

Treasure Association Placer Claims , and the Halcyon Lode Mining Claim;

2. Mr. Jimmy C. Chisum, his wife Donna Chisum, his daughter, and any other persons

occupying the subject lands shall vacate the subject lands within 90 days of the date of this

Order;

3. Mr. Jimmy C. Chisum, his wife, his daughter, and any other persons occupying the

subject property shall cause all improvements, structures, trailers, mobile homes, vehicles,

equipment, fences, utilities, tools, fuels, livestock, fowl, pets and all other personal property

to be removed from the subject lands within 90 days from the date of this Order. The United

States shall have title and ownership of any improvements, structures, trailers, mobile homes,

vehicles, fences, utilities, tools, livestock, fowl, pets and all other personal property that is not

removed from the subject lands within said 90 days, and may remove and dispose of same

without any liability, and recover the cost of removing and disposing of same from Mr. Jimmy

C. Chisum;

4. Mr. Jimmy C. Chisum shall cause the subject lands to be reclaimed to a reasonably

natural condition within 90 days from the date of this Order. After 90 days from the date of

this Order, the United States may complete any uncompleted reclamation needed to restore

the subject lands to a reasonably natural condition, and recover the costs from Mr. Chisum;

and

Case 2:06-cv-00770-JAT Document 11 Filed 11/01/07 Page 10 of 11
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 - 11 -

5. If any person continues to occupy the subject lands beyond the said 90 days, the

United States may apply for a Writ to issue to the United States Marshal or any Deputy United

States Marshal to effectuate the terms of this Order.

DATED this 31st day of October, 2007.

Case 2:06-cv-00770-JAT Document 11 Filed 11/01/07 Page 11 of 11