Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-88-02039/USCOURTS-ca10-88-02039-0/pdf.json

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

---

• FI LED 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEAiiJnited States Court of Appeals 

Tenth Ci:cuit 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

GEORGE DOLEZAL, JR., ) 

) 

Plaintiff-Appellant, ) 

) 

v. ) 

) 

DONALD P. HODEL, Secretary of the ) 

Interior, ) 

) 

Defendant-Appellee. ) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

FEB / 

- 1aq1 ...,_ 

:ROBERT L. HOECK...ER 

Clerk 

No. 88-2039 

(D.C. No. 87-C-264) 

(D. Colo.) 

Before LOGAN, MOORE, and BALDOCK, 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. 

submitted without oral argument. 

The case is therefore ordered 

Plaintiff appeals from the district court's order denying 

plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and granting defendant's 

motion for summary judgment. 1 Plaintiff sought review of a 

* 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. 

1 This appeal has been at issue since October, 1988. This 

(continued on next page) 

Appellate Case: 88-2039 Document: 010110098431 Date Filed: 02/04/1991 Page: 1 
• 

decision of the Interior Board of Land Appeals ·(IBLA) dismissing 

as untimely plaintiff's appeals from the Bureau of Land 

Management's (BLM) denial of three oil and gas lease offers. We 

affirm. 

This court reviews a district court order granting summary 

judgment de nova, viewing the record in the light most favorable 

to the nonmoving party. Ewing v. Amoco Oil Co., 823 F.2d 1432, 

1437 (10th Cir. 1987). Summary judgment is appropriate only if 

there is no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is 

entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). 

The agency's decision may be set aside only if it is "arbitrary, 

capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance 

with law." 5 U.S.C. S 706(2) (A); see also Wilder v. Prokop, 846 

F.2d 613, 619 (10th Cir. 1988). 

The facts underlying this appeal are undisputed. Plaintiff 

filed with the BLM three noncompetitive oil and gas lease offers 

between December 1984 and August 1985. In July and August of 

1986, the BLM issued and served upon plaintiff three separate 

decisions informing plaintiff that his acceptance of special 

stipulations was required prior to issuance of the leases. The 

BLM decisions stated the following: 

Acceptance of the offer and issuance of the lease ... appears to be proper if special stipulations are made a 

part of the lease. The offerer must consent to 

inclusion of the stipulations by signing and returning 

all copies of the enclosed stipulations to this office. 

(continued from previous page) 

court is without excuse as to why this case has lingered so long 

prior to its determination. This panel, however, was not assigned 

this appeal until November 29, 1990. 

2 

Appellate Case: 88-2039 Document: 010110098431 Date Filed: 02/04/1991 Page: 2 
• 

The above requirement must be met within 30 days after 

receipt of this decision. During this compliance 

period, there is no right of appeal to the Interior 

Board of Land Appeals. The 30 day appeal period 

commences upon the expiration of the 30 day compliance 

period. If the above requirement is not met, your offer 

to lease will be rejected without further notice. 

You have the right 

Appeals, Office of the 

regulations contained 

enclosed Form 1842-1. 

to appeal to the Board of Land 

Secretary, in accordance with the 

in 43 CFR, Part 4, and the 

Plaintiff did not consent to the required stipulations within 

thirty days of service of the BLM decisions. Further, plaintiff 

did not file notices of appeal from the BLM decisions until 

October 30, 1986, beyond the thirty-day appeal period prescribed 

in the BLM decisions. 

untimely. 

The IBLA dismissed these appeals as 

Department of Interior regulations provide that 

[a] person who wishes to appeal to the [IBLA] must file 

in the office of the officer who made the decision (not 

the Board) a notice that he wishes to appeal. A person 

served with the decision being appealed must transmit 

the notice of appeal in time for it to be filed in the 

office where it is required to be filed within 30 days 

after the date of service. 

43 C.F.R. S 4-411(a). Plaintiff argues that, because the BLM 

never served him with final, appealable decisions rejecting his 

lease offers, as required under section 4-4ll(a) to commence the 

running of the appeal period, his appeals to the IBLA were timely 

commenced. 

Where, as in this case, rights of individuals are affected, 

federal agencies are bound to follow their own procedures. Morton 

v. Ruiz, 415 U.S. 199, 235 (1974); see also, ~, Fluor 

Constructors, Inc. v. Occupational Safety & Health Review Comm'n, 

3 

Appellate Case: 88-2039 Document: 010110098431 Date Filed: 02/04/1991 Page: 3 
861 F.2d 936, 939 (6th Cir. 1988). Requiring an agency to follow 

its own regulations prevents "'unjust discrimination and [the 

denial of] adequate notice contrary to fundamental concepts of 

fair play and due process.'" International House v. NLRB, 676 

F.2d 906, 912 (2d Cir. 1982)(quoting NLRB v. Welcome-Am. 

Fertilizer Co., 443 F.2d 19, 20 (9th Cir. 1971)); see also Utah 

Int'l, Inc. v. Department of Interior, 553 F. Supp. 872, 879 (D. 

Utah 1982). However, "an agency's violation of its procedural 

rules will not result in reversible error absent a showing that 

the claimant has been prejudiced on the merits or deprived of 

substantial rights because of the agency's procedural lapses." 

Connor v. United States Civil Serv. Comm'n, 721 F.2d 1054, 1056 

(6th Cir. 1983); see also McCulloch Interstate Gas Corp. v. 

Federal Power Comm'n, 536 F.2d 910, 913 (10th Cir. 1976)("[A]gency 

action will not be upset because of harmless error."). 

The BLM's decisions rejecting plaintiff's lease offers 

without further notice unless plaintiff accepted the agency's 

special stipulations within a specific time period did not comply 

with the agency's own procedural regulations. See 43 C.F.R. 

S 4-411(a). The agency's deviation from its own regulations, 

however, inured to the benefit of plaintiff by providing plaintiff 

with an additional opportunity to obtain issuance of the leases by 

agreeing to the BLM's stipulations prior to the time the BLM's 

rejection of the leases became effective. 

Because the language in the BLM's decisions clearly and 

specifically addressed the time to file an appeal to the IBLA, 

plaintiff has failed to allege any prejudice resulting from the 

4 

Appellate Case: 88-2039 Document: 010110098431 Date Filed: 02/04/1991 Page: 4 
, . 

BLM's deviation from its own regulation. Because timely filing of 

a notice of appeal with the IBLA is mandatory and jurisdictional, 

the IBLA did not err in dismissing plaintiff's appeals. See 

Naartex Consulting Corp. v. Watt, 542 F. Supp. 1196, 1205 (D.D.C. 

1982)(quoting Ilean Landis, 49 IBLA 59 (1980)), aff'd, 722 F.2d 

779 (D.C. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 467 U.S. 1210 (1984). 

The judgment of the United States District Court for the 

District of Colorado is AFFIRMED. 

Entered for the Court 

Bobby R. Baldock 

Circuit Judge 

5 

Appellate Case: 88-2039 Document: 010110098431 Date Filed: 02/04/1991 Page: 5