Source: https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/752/454/57929/
Timestamp: 2020-02-18 15:12:03
Document Index: 512073484

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 7401', '§ 6901', '§ 9601', '§ 7412', '§ 7412', '§ 7607', '§ 7604', '§ 6972', '§ 7604', '§ 6972', '§ 701', '§ 1331', '§ 1361', '§ 2201']

Raymond W. Luckie, et Ux., et al., Plaintiffs-appellants, v. Environmental Protection Agency, et al., Defendants-appellees, 752 F.2d 454 (9th Cir. 1985) :: Justia
Justia › US Law › Case Law › Federal Courts › Courts of Appeals › Ninth Circuit › 1985 › Raymond W. Luckie, et Ux., et al., Plaintiffs-appellants, v. Environmental Protection Agency, et al....
Raymond W. Luckie, et Ux., et al., Plaintiffs-appellants, v. Environmental Protection Agency, et al., Defendants-appellees, 752 F.2d 454 (9th Cir. 1985)
US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit - 752 F.2d 454 (9th Cir. 1985) Argued and Submitted Nov. 15, 1984. Decided Jan. 25, 1985
Appellants ("Residents") appeal from the district court's dismissal of their complaint for lack of jurisdiction and failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. Residents' claims against the Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") were premised upon the Clean Air Act ("CAA"), 42 U.S.C. § 7401 et seq. (1982), the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 ("RCRA"), 42 U.S.C. § 6901 et seq. (1982), and the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act ("CERCLA"), 42 U.S.C. § 9601 et seq. (1982). We affirm in part, and remand in part with instructions.
In dismissing the complaint, the district court carefully considered the many claims alleged by Residents. Because questions of law are involved, we review the district court's decision under the de novo standard of review. United States v. McConney, 728 F.2d 1195 (9th Cir. 1984) (en banc), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 105 S. Ct. 101, 83 L. Ed. 2d 46 (1984).
Residents challenge EPA's current "no visible emission" standard for asbestos3 by claiming that it is not quantifiable and, therefore, not a valid emission standard as required by the CAA, 42 U.S.C. § 7412. In so challenging, Residents rely heavily upon Adamo Wrecking Co. v. United States, 434 U.S. 275, 98 S. Ct. 566, 54 L. Ed. 2d 538 (1978).
The district court concluded that the "no visible emission" standard is an emission standard within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 7412. Consequently, the district court also concluded that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction. We agree.
Claims challenging the validity of standards promulgated by the Administrator "may be filed only in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia." 42 U.S.C. § 7607(b) (1). The Supreme Court in Adamo held "that one ... who is charged with a criminal violation under the [CAA] may defend on the ground that the 'emission standard' which he is charged with having violated was not an 'emission standard' within the contemplation of Congress when it employed that term." 434 U.S. at 279, 98 S. Ct. at 570, 54 L. Ed. 2d at 544 (emphasis added). Furthermore, the Court took great care to limit the holding, warning district courts not to engage in judicial review of that type precluded by section 7607 "under the guise of making a determination as to whether a regulation is an 'emission standard.' " 434 U.S. at 285, 98 S. Ct. at 573, 54 L. Ed. 2d at 548. Adamo is, without question, inapplicable to the facts at bar, as Residents face no criminal charges. The district court correctly concluded that this claim was improperly before the court and wisely dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. We affirm as to this issue.
Residents' complaint before the district court asserted numerous claims against EPA for violations of CAA, RCRA, and CERCLA in that the Agency allegedly failed to carry out certain "mandatory" duties. Both CAA and RCRA contain a so-called "citizens-suit" provision which allows federal jurisdiction for suits against the Administrator "where there is alleged a failure of the Administrator to perform any act or duty under this [statute] which is not discretionary with the Administrator." 42 U.S.C. § 7604(a) (2); 42 U.S.C. § 6972(a) (2). (Emphasis added). CERCLA does not contain such a provision, and much has been made of the legislative history and intent behind this conscious exclusion, as well as the possibility that Congress is now considering an amendment to include some similar provision.
The district court reviewed separately the alleged violations under each act, concluding for the most part that EPA's duties under the specified provisions were discretionary. Therefore, these allegations were dismissed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b) (6). As to the CERCLA claims, the district court also held that there was no cause of action because, inter alia, citizens-suits were not allowed. One of Residents' allegations (under RCRA), however, was dismissed because it was not ripe for review. This concerned EPA's alleged failure to regulate asbestos as a hazardous waste, pursuant to a special study which was not yet due at the time of the decision below.
This court's power is limited to the adjudication of actual cases and live controversies. We lack jurisdiction to hear moot cases. We cannot give opinions upon abstract propositions; an actual controversy must exist at all stages of review. DeFunis v. Odegaard, 416 U.S. 312, 316, 94 S. Ct. 1704, 1705, 40 L. Ed. 2d 164 (1974) (per curiam); Trustees For Alaska v. EPA, 749 F.2d 549, at 554 (9th Cir. 1984); Enrico's, Inc. v. Rice, 730 F.2d 1250 (9th Cir. 1984).
42 U.S.C. § 7604(e); 42 U.S.C. § 6972(f). Relying on this language in CAA and RCRA, and the fact that CERCLA contains no citizens-suit clause, Residents assert that there is jurisdiction independent of the statutes' own provisions with which to review this alleged abuse of discretion. Residents then state that under the authority of the Administrative Procedure Act ("APA"), 5 U.S.C. § 701 et seq. (1982), this independent jurisdiction is granted by the general federal question statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (1982), the Federal Mandamus and Venue Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1361 (1982) and the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201 (1982).
Weinstein v. Bradford, 423 U.S. 147, 149, 96 S. Ct. 347, 348, 46 L. Ed. 2d 350 (1975) (per curiam); Trustees For Alaska v. EPA, 749 F.2d 549, at 554 (9th Cir. 1984); Johansen v. San Diego County Dist. Council, 745 F.2d 1289, 1292 (9th Cir. 1984).
Consideration must also be given to the "voluntary cessation" doctrine, which is a more logical test for mootness in this situation. Ordinarily, voluntary cessation of allegedly illegal conduct does not render a case moot, United States v. W.T. Grant Co., 345 U.S. 629, 632, 73 S. Ct. 894, 897, 97 L. Ed. 1303, 1309 (1953), unless the defendant can show (1) that there is no reasonable expectation that the alleged violation will recur,7 and (2) that interim relief or events have completely and irrevocably eradicated the effects of the alleged violation. County of Los Angeles v. Davis, 440 U.S. 625, 631, 99 S. Ct. 1379, 1383, 59 L. Ed. 2d 642, 649 (1979). We feel EPA has met its heavy burden under this test.
See E.D.F. v. Gorsuch, 713 F.2d 802, 818-821 (DC Cir. 1983) (Wilkey, J., dissenting) (distinguishing between applications of the "voluntary cessation" and the "capable of repetition" tests)
Some circuits, including this one, have said that where the government's actions are those questioned, "the mere probability of recurrence must be coupled with a certainty that the impact will fall on the same objecting litigants." State Highway Commission of Missouri v. Volpe, 479 F.2d 1099, 1106 (8th Cir. 1973); Accord, Halvonik v. Reagan, 457 F.2d 311, 313 (9th Cir. 1972); Committee to Free the Fort Dix 38 v. Collins, 429 F.2d 807, 812 (3d Cir. 1970)
The United States District Court for the District of Arizona granted partial summary judgment on April 10, 1984, in United States v. Metate Asbestos Corp., et al., 584 F. Supp. 1143