Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-91-01304/USCOURTS-ca10-91-01304-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 290
Nature of Suit: Other Real Property Actions
Cause of Action: 

---

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS .l:41 I L i.:j D 

Unil:cd States Court of App~b 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

AMOS A. HOPKINS, ) 

) 

Plaintiff-Appellant, ) 

) 

v. ) 

) 

DONNIE R. SPARKS, as the District ) 

Manager, Canon City District ) 

Office, U.S. Bureau of Land ) 

Management, Canon City, Colorado, ) 

) 

Defendant-Appel lee. ) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Tent.\i Circui~ 

FEBO 51992 

ROBERT L. HOECKEP.. 

Clerk 

No. 91-1304 

(D.C. No. 91-C-696) 

(D. Colorado) 

Before LOGAN, BARRETT AND EBEL, Circuit Judges. 

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel 

has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially 

assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 

34(a): 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. 

Plaintiff Amos A. Hopkins, a Kiowa Indian, petitioned the 

Bureau of Land Management (BLM) of the U.S. Department of the 

Interior to classify and open public lands and simultaneously 

* This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall not 

be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, except 

for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of the case, 

res judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

Appellate Case: 91-1304 Document: 010110221720 Date Filed: 02/05/1992 Page: 1 
applied for an Indian land allotment. After the BLM denied 

plaintiff's petition and application because they included private 

as well as public lands, plaintiff amended and refiled the 

petition and application. When the BLM did not process his 

amended petition and application promptly plaintiff filed a prose 

action in federal court seeking to compel the BLM to act. During 

the pendency of the case the BLM issued a decision on June 14, 

1991, denying plaintiff relief for reasons stated therein. That 

decision informed plaintiff that he had forty-five days from its 

receipt to file a protest with the Canon City district office, and 

that "if no protests are filed within the time allowed, this 

Decision will become final." IR. tab 8 ex. A-1 at 5. In its 

order issued July 30, 1991, the district court construed the 

plaintiff's prose complaint as seeking review of the BLM's 

decision to deny plaintiff an allotment, but dismissed the action 

for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. 

Plaintiff thereafter filed this timely appeal from the 

district court decision; but he never filed for administrative 

review of the June 14, 1991 decision of the BLM. 

We agree with the district court that it should not entertain 

a challenge to the BLM's decision until administrative remedies 

have been exhausted. See Kale v. United States, 489 F.2d 449, 454 

(9th Cir. 1973), cert. denied, 417 U.S. 915 (1974); see also Myers 

v. Bethlehem Shipbuilding Corp., 303 U.S. 41, 50-51 (1938). It is 

too late now for plaintiff to exhaust the administrative remedies; 

plaintiff bypassed his opportunity for administrative review under 

the time limits set out in the decision advising him that the BLM 

had rejected his claim. Furthermore, a failure to file an 

-2-

Appellate Case: 91-1304 Document: 010110221720 Date Filed: 02/05/1992 Page: 2 
administrative appeal in time does not constitute "futility" 

within the contemplation of the law as necessary to permit us to 

review plaintiff's claim on its merits. See Kale, 489 F.2d at 

454; see also Coalition for Preservation of Hispanic Broadcasting 

v. FCC, 931 F.2d 73, 77 (D.C. Cir.), cert. denied, __ U.S. __ , 

112 S. Ct. 298 (1991). 

Because plaintiff's complaint was filed before the BLM's 

decision on the amended application, the complaint did not contest 

any of the reasons given by the BLM for its denial of plaintiff's 

application. No arguments directed to the BLM decision are in the 

district court record that was certified to us on appeal. 

Therefore, it might have been more appropriate for the district 

court simply to have denied the plaintiff's petition to compel the 

BLM to act as moot because the Board had acted, albeit in a manner 

contrary to plaintiff's desires. 1 Cf . Gray v. Office of Personnel 

Management, 771 F.2d 1504, 1514 (D.C. Cir. 1985), cert. denied, 

475 U.S. 1089 (1986) (mandamus claim moot because agency had 

performed statutory duty). 

In either event, the court's dismissal was proper and it is 

AFFIRMED. The mandate shall issue forthwith. 

1 

Entered for the Court 

James K. Logan 

Circuit Judge 

We do not believe, however, that plaintiff was prejudiced by 

the district court's action in liberally construing the complaint. 

Plaintiff has had prior experience in Indian land allotment applications. See,~, United States v. Hopkins, 716 F.2d 739 (10th 

Cir. 1982) (upholding conviction of mail fraud in scheme to 

collect fees for assisting persons in filing for Indian land 

allotments) . 

-3-

Appellate Case: 91-1304 Document: 010110221720 Date Filed: 02/05/1992 Page: 3