Opinion ID: 163863
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: CDIB-Card Claims

Text: 53 The district court dismissed Plaintiffs' CDIB-card claims for failure to exhaust administrative remedies under the BIA's regulations. The parties disagree as to whether the claims were dismissed under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1) or 12(b)(6). Rule 12(b)(1) provides for challenges to the court's subject-matter jurisdiction, while Rule 12(b)(6) provides for motions to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Dismissals under either rule are generally reviewed de novo. MacArthur v. San Juan County, 309 F.3d 1216, 1220 (10th Cir.2002) (12(b)(6)); Holt v. United States, 46 F.3d 1000, 1003 (10th Cir.1995) (12(b)(1)). If, however, the district court's ruling under Rule 12(b)(1) includes findings of jurisdictional facts, those findings are reviewed for clear error. Holt, 46 F.3d at 1003. 54 In their opening brief Plaintiffs assert only one challenge to the dismissal of their CDIB-card claims: that the dismissal was foreclosed by our holding in Davis I that [t]he allegations in Plaintiffs' complaint are sufficient to resolve the jurisdictional issues in favor of Plaintiffs. 192 F.3d at 954 n. 1. Plaintiffs acknowledge that in Davis I we said that [o]n remand and by proper motion to the district court, Defendants may challenge the allegations made in the complaint and request that the district court make factual findings necessary to resolve any jurisdictional issues. Id. But Plaintiffs claim that Defendants never made that request. We disagree. 55 Defendants moved for dismissal under both Rule 12(b)(1) and Rule 12(b)(6). Whereas a motion under Rule 12(b)(6) challenges only the sufficiency of the complaint, see MacArthur, 309 F.3d at 1221, a motion under Rule 12(b)(1) may go beyond allegations contained in the complaint and challenge the facts upon which subject matter jurisdiction depends, Holt, 46 F.3d at 1003. A review of Defendants' district court brief makes clear that in moving to dismiss Plaintiffs' CDIB-card claim, Defendants challenged not just Plaintiffs' allegations of jurisdiction but also the facts underlying those allegations. The Introductory Statement in Defendants' brief below contains the following passage: 56 With respect to the claim that Plaintiffs were wrongfully denied CDIB cards, the Court should dismiss the case and/or grant summary judgment in favor of the Federal Defendants because of: 1) failure to exhaust administrative remedies, 2) failure to state a claim, and also because 3) the Federal Defendants possess sovereign immunity which has not been waived and the court otherwise lacks subject matter jurisdiction. Despite Sylvia Davis' claim that she applied for a CDIB for her son, Donnell Davis, BIA records do not disclose that either of the two individual Plaintiffs ever made any application for a CDIB card. Ms. Davis has presented no documentary evidence or record supporting her allegations. 57 Aplt.App. at 192-93 (internal citation omitted). Later, in the portion of the brief entitled The Action Should Be Dismissed As To the CDIB Issues Because There Is No Final Agency Action Permitting Any Review of a Purported Claim Under the APA, Defendants said, Because there is no evidence that the individual Plaintiffs have even applied for a CDIB card, the Plaintiffs' failure to exhaust administrative remedies deprives this court of jurisdiction and the claims should be dismissed, Aplt. App. at 218 (emphasis added). 58 Moreover, the district court, which can sua sponte question subject matter jurisdiction, see Prairie Band of Potawatomi Indians v. Pierce, 253 F.3d 1234, 1240 (10th Cir.2001), clearly confronted the issue. Its opinion states: 59 [T]he Court finds plaintiffs have not demonstrated the Court has jurisdiction over their CDIB claim pursuant to the APA. The Court finds plaintiffs have not complied with the established administrative procedures which would render their CDIB card claim ripe for appeal. Although plaintiffs allege they completed and submitted applications for CDIB cards and the BIA failed to act, there remain administrative procedures that must be followed. Plaintiffs have not demonstrated they have complied with the provisions established for appealing inaction of an official. The record is void of any evidence that plaintiffs ever requested in writing that the BIA take action on their CDIB card applications. 60 Davis II, 199 F.Supp.2d at 1180 (emphasis added). Because Defendants' motion challenged the facts underlying Plaintiffs' allegations of jurisdiction, the district court's resolution of that motion was not foreclosed by our holding in Davis I, which addressed only the sufficiency of the allegations themselves. 61 Plaintiffs respond that even if Defendants' motion to dismiss is properly construed as a motion under Rule 12(b)(1), the district court was nevertheless precluded from considering information beyond the allegations of the complaint. Consideration of such information, they claim, would have converted the motion into one for summary judgment. But, they point out, The district court clearly did not grant summary judgment on the CDIB card claim; it dismissed the claim without prejudice. Aplt. Reply Br. at 16. 62 Again, their argument is misconceived. When a party challenges the allegations supporting subject-matter jurisdiction, the court has wide discretion to allow affidavits, other documents, and a limited evidentiary hearing to resolve disputed jurisdictional facts. Holt, 46 F.3d at 1003. In such instances, a court's reference to evidence outside the pleadings does not convert the motion [to dismiss] to a Rule 56 motion [for summary judgment]. Id. 63 We recognize that when resolution of the jurisdictional question is intertwined with the merits of the case, it is necessary to convert a Rule 12(b)(1) motion... into a [motion under] Rule 12(b)(6) ... or ... Rule 56. Id. But this is not such a case. When deciding whether jurisdiction is intertwined with the merits of a particular dispute, the underlying issue is whether resolution of the jurisdictional question requires resolution of an aspect of the substantive claim. Sizova v. Nat'l Inst. of Standards & Tech., 282 F.3d 1320, 1324 (10th Cir.2002). The substantive issue in Plaintiffs' case is whether Plaintiffs were improperly denied CDIB cards, not whether a particular plaintiff has exhausted administrative remedies. See id. at 1325 (exhaustion of administrative remedies is simply not an aspect of [a] substantive claim of discrimination). Accordingly, we affirm the district court's resolution of Defendants' motion under Rule 12(b)(1). 64 To the extent that Plaintiffs raise additional challenges in their reply brief, we reject those challenges as not timely raised. See Stump, 211 F.3d at 533.