Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caDC-06-05294/USCOURTS-caDC-06-05294-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 

---

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

Argued December 7, 2007 Decided February 5, 2008

No. 06-5294

ROLE MODELS AMERICA, INC.,

APPELLANT

v.

PETE GEREN,

SECRETARY OF THE ARMY AND

MARGARET SPELLINGS, SECRETARY OF EDUCATION,

APPELLEES

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Columbia

(No. 01cv01595)

Gary M. Hnath argued the cause and filed the briefs for

appellant.

Brian C. Baldrate, Special Assistant U.S. Attorney, argued

the cause for appellees. With him on the brief were Jeffrey A.

Taylor, U.S. Attorney, and R. Craig Lawrence, Assistant U.S.

Attorney. Kevin K. Robitaille, Assistant U.S. Attorney, entered

an appearance.

USCA Case #06-5294 Document #1097158 Filed: 02/05/2008 Page 1 of 7
2

1

 All following citations to the Base Closure Act are to the Act as it

appears in note following 10 U.S.C. § 2687.

Before: RANDOLPH, GRIFFITH and KAVANAUGH, Circuit

Judges.

Opinion for the Court filed by Circuit Judge RANDOLPH.

RANDOLPH, Circuit Judge: Role Models America, Inc.

brought suit under the Defense Base Closure and Realignment

Act of 1990, 104 Stat. 1808 (codified as amended at 10 U.S.C.

§ 2687 note),1 the National Historic Preservation Act, 16 U.S.C.

§ 470 et seq., and the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C.

§ 702 et seq., to enjoin the Secretary of the Army from

conveying Fort Ritchie, a former military base, to PenMar

Development Corporation of Maryland. The district court

dismissed Role Models’ claims for lack of standing. We affirm,

but on different grounds with respect to the Base Closure Act.

I.

The Base Closure Act outlines a procedure for closing and

realigning military bases within the United States. Base Closure

Act § 2901(b). Unless the Secretary of Defense determines that

another federal agency or department can use the military

installation chosen for closure, the Secretary must publish notice

that the surplus property exists. Base Closure Act

§ 2905(b)(5)(A), (b)(7)(B)(i)(IV). Within thirty days of the

notice’s publication, the local redevelopment authority, an entity

established by state or local government and recognized by the

Secretary of Defense, must publish a notice stating the period

within which it will entertain statements of interest from

“representatives of the homeless and other interested parties.”

24 C.F.R. § 586.20(c)(1); 32 C.F.R. § 176.20(c)(1). After the

notice is published, the homeless provider and “other interested

party” applications are reviewed separately. Base Closure Act

USCA Case #06-5294 Document #1097158 Filed: 02/05/2008 Page 2 of 7
3

§ 2905(b)(7)(K)(v), (b)(7)(F). The Secretary of Defense

determines if any “other interested parties” are eligible for a

public benefit conveyance, Base Closure Act

§ 2905(b)(7)(K)(v), while the redevelopment authority reviews

the homeless provider submissions. Base Closure Act

§ 2905(b)(7)(F). The redevelopment authority may then submit

its own redevelopment plan to the Secretary of Housing and

Urban Development for approval. Base Closure Act

§ 2905(b)(7)(F). 

Fort Ritchie is a former United States Army base located in

western Maryland and is home to the Camp Ritchie Historic

District, a National Register-eligible historic district. The fort

was selected for closure in 1995. See Notice of Recommended

Base Closures and Realignments, 60 Fed. Reg. 11,414, 11,436

(Mar. 1, 1995) (Secretary of Defense recommending closure of

the base); President’s Message to Congress Transmitting

Recommendations of the Defense Base Closure and

Realignment Commission, H.R. Doc. No. 104-96, at 1 (1995)

(President accepting recommendation). In response, the

Maryland General Assembly created PenMar to serve as the

redevelopment authority responsible for developing the Fort

Ritchie property. 

Role Models is a non-profit Maryland corporation seeking

to use the Fort Ritchie property as an educational institution for

out-of-school youth. Role Models first brought suit against the

Secretary of the Army and the Secretary of Education to enjoin

the conveyance of Fort Ritchie from the Army to PenMar in July

2001. Role Models Am., Inc. v. White, 193 F. Supp. 2d 76, 77

(D.D.C. 2002) (“Role Models I”). Role Models failed to acquire

the Fort Ritchie property through the application process, and

alleged that the defendants violated Base Closure Act

notification and screening procedures and the APA. Id. at 79.

USCA Case #06-5294 Document #1097158 Filed: 02/05/2008 Page 3 of 7
4

The district court denied Role Models’ motions for a temporary

restraining order and a preliminary injunction. Id. at 77.

On appeal, this court held that the defendants had not given

proper notice with respect to the Fort Ritchie property. Role

Models Am., Inc. v. White, 317 F.3d 327, 333 (D.C. Cir. 2003)

(“Role Models II”). The court stated that it “cannot imagine

how Role Models, an organization devoted to establishing

schools for at-risk minors, could possibly have interpreted a

notice entitled ‘Homeless Assistance Outreach Initiative’ as an

invitation to apply for the Fort Ritchie property,” and concluded

that the notice was insufficient notification for “other interested

parties” as the law requires. Id. at 332. The court remanded the

case, directing the district court to issue a permanent injunction

against the conveyance until the defendants remedied the

procedural error. Id. at 333-34. To comply with this order, the

defendants published a notice in October 2003 for “other

interested parties” to consider applying for the Fort Ritchie

property. Role Models then applied for a no-cost public benefit

conveyance. The Department of Education denied the

application. 

In October 2004, the defendants claimed that they had

remedied the procedural error and moved to dismiss the

complaint. The district court denied their motion because the

Department of Housing and Urban Development approved

PenMar’s redevelopment plan before the remedial screening was

complete. In order to remedy that procedural error, PenMar then

sent HUD a revised proposal and HUD accepted it. 

In November 2005, defendants again moved to dismiss.

Before the district court ruled on the motion to dismiss, Role

Models amended its complaint to claim, inter alia, that it is a

homeless provider and that the defendants violated the Base

Closure Act by failing simultaneously to screen for homeless

USCA Case #06-5294 Document #1097158 Filed: 02/05/2008 Page 4 of 7
5

providers when issuing the remedial notices for “other interested

parties” in 2003. In addition, Role Models included the

allegation that the defendants’ conveyance of Fort Ritchie

violated the Preservation Act because it failed to take into

account the impact of the transfer on historic properties. In

2006, the district court granted the defendants’ motion to

dismiss, holding that Role Models’ claims were barred by this

court’s rulings and that Role Models lacked standing to bring its

APA, Base Closure Act, and Preservation Act claims. 

 

II.

Role Models claims that the defendants violated the Base

Closure Act by failing to re-screen for homeless providers when,

on remand, they screened for “other interested parties.” The

district court held that Role Models lacked standing to bring this

claim because it was not a homeless provider.

Whether Role Models is a homeless provider under the

Base Closure Act, see 24 C.F.R. § 586.5, seems to us beside the

point. In our earlier opinion, we noted that Role Models filed

suit “[c]laiming that it was entitled to a public benefit

conveyance screening regarding the Fort Ritchie property”

because the defendants did not screen for “other interested

parties.” Role Models II, 317 F.3d at 331. We explained, “[i]f

the Secretary of Defense determines that an ‘other interested’

applicant meets the eligibility standards . . . the Secretary effects

a ‘public benefit conveyance’ of the requested property to that

party,” id. at 329, and concluded that the failure to publish

notice for other interested parties “prevented Role Models from

triggering a public benefit conveyance screening.” Id. at 333.

Our opinion made clear that we were remanding only for the rescreening of other interested parties. 

USCA Case #06-5294 Document #1097158 Filed: 02/05/2008 Page 5 of 7
6

The district court had no “power or authority to deviate

from the mandate” this court issued in Role Models II. Briggs

v. Pa. R.R. Co., 334 U.S. 304, 306 (1948). The mandate rule is

a “‘more powerful version’ of the law-of-the-case doctrine,

which prevents courts from reconsidering issues that have

already been decided in the same case.” Indep. Petroleum Ass’n

of Am. v. Babbitt, 235 F.3d 588, 597 (D.C. Cir. 2001). In light

of our earlier decision, Role Models cannot receive a rescreening for homeless providers because the district court had

no authority to issue such a remedy.

III.

Role Models claims the defendants violated the Historic

Preservation Act by failing to consider the effects of the

property transfer on the Fort Ritchie historic district. 16 U.S.C.

§ 470f. The district court held that Role Models is not within

the zone of interests protected by the Preservation Act and

therefore lacked prudential standing to bring this claim. See

Allen v. Wright, 468 U.S. 737, 751 (1984). This strikes us as

correct. 

The Preservation Act was enacted to “encourage the public

and private preservation and utilization of all usable elements of

the Nation’s historic built environment.” 16 U.S.C. § 470-1(5).

Role Models does not allege that the purpose of its organization

is related to preserving historic sites like Fort Ritchie. Role

Models seeks to acquire Fort Ritchie to use it as an educational

facility for at-risk youth. The Preservation Act does not protect

Role Models’ right to acquire property for its own use when the

use is unrelated to the Preservation Act’s purpose. Ass’n of

Data Processing Serv. Org. v. Camp, 397 U.S. 150, 153 (1970);

Rosebud Sioux Tribe v. McDivitt, 286 F.3d 1031, 1039 (8th Cir.

2002) ; Presidio Golf Club v. Nat’l Park Serv., 155 F.3d 1153,

USCA Case #06-5294 Document #1097158 Filed: 02/05/2008 Page 6 of 7
7

2

 The plaintiff’s brief contains several additional arguments that do not

merit discussion. We have considered these arguments and have

rejected them.

1157-58 (9th Cir. 1998). It follows that Role Models lacked

prudential standing to pursue this claim.2

Affirmed. 

USCA Case #06-5294 Document #1097158 Filed: 02/05/2008 Page 7 of 7