Opinion ID: 3012166
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: introduction

Text: The two appeals now before us stem from a complaint filed under the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA), 30 U.S.C. S 1201-1328 (1988 & Supp. IV 1993), by five non-profit sporting and environmental organizations -- the Pennsylvania Federation of Sportsmen’s Clubs, Inc.; the Pennsylvania Chapter Sierra Club; Pennsylvania Trout, Inc.; Tri-State Citizens Mining Network; and the Mountain Watershed Association, Inc. (plaintiffs). More specifically, plaintiffs filed suit under Section 520 of SMCRA, 30 U.S.C. S 1270, which permits citizens suits to be commenced in federal district court by any person against, as relevant here, aState regulatory authority to the extent permitted by the eleventh amendment to the Constitution. S 1270(a)(2).1 Jurisdiction _________________________________________________________________ 1. Section 1270(a) reads in full: S 1270. Citizens suits (a) Civil action to compel compliance with this chapter Except as provided in subsection (b) of this section, any person having an interest which is or may be adversely affected may commence a civil action on his own behalf to compel compliance with this chapter -- (1) against the United States or any other governmental instrumentality or agency to the extent permitted by the eleventh amendment to the Constitution which is alleged to be in violation of the provisions of this chapter or of any rule, regulation, order or permit issued pursuant thereto, or against any other person who is alleged to be in violation of any rule, regulation, order or permit issued pursuant to this subchapter; or (2) against the Secretary or the appropriate State regulatory authority to the extent permitted by the eleventh amendment to 3 was also invoked under 28 U.S.C. SS 1331 and 1361. Defendants in this action for declaratory and injunctive relief are James M. Seif, Secretary, Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (DEP);2 Gale A. Norton, Secretary, U.S. Department of the Interior; and Glenda H. Owens, Acting Director, Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement. The Pennsylvania Coal Association, the Pennsylvania Anthracite Council, and ARIPPA were permitted to intervene as defendants. Seif is the sole named defendant in Counts One through Eight of the eleven-count complaint, the only counts before us on these appeals. While we will at a later point discuss these counts in detail, it is sufficient for present purposes to note that Counts One through Six allege that Seif failed to perform various nondiscretionary duties in connection with implementing, administering, enforcing, and maintaining the approved Pennsylvania surface coal mining program in accordance with SMCRA, the federal implementing regulations, and provisions of the approved Pennsylvania program. Counts Seven and Eight allege Seif ’s failure to perform a nondiscretionary duty only under SMCRA and 30 C.F.R. SS 938.16(h) and 732.17(f)(1), respectively. Seif moved before the District Court to dismiss Counts One through Eight on various grounds, including the ground that they were barred as against him by the _________________________________________________________________ the Constitution where there is alleged a failure of the Secretary or the appropriate State regulatory authority to perform any act or duty under this chapter which is not discretionary with the Secretary or with the appropriate State regulatory authority. The district courts shall have jurisdiction, without regard to the amount in controversy or the citizenship of the parties. 2. Suit was brought against Seif in his official and his individual capacities. After considering the nature of the relief sought as to him, i.e., injunctive relief for acts within his official responsibilities, the District Court treated the claims as properly pursued against him only in his official capacity. Plaintiffs have not taken issue with this determination, nor will we. Parenthetically, we will, as do the parties, continue to refer to Seif  although he is no longer Secretary of the DEP. 4 Eleventh Amendment and that the Ex parte Young exception to Eleventh Amendment immunity did not apply because plaintiffs’ claims arose under state law. The District Court granted that motion as to all counts save Counts One and Three. Seif appealed the District Court’s partial denial of his motion to this Court (docketed at 002139) and plaintiffs moved for reconsideration as to Counts Four, Six, Seven, and Eight of the six dismissed counts. The District Court treated plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration as one under Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 59(e) to alter or amend the judgment, and we stayed Seif ’s appeal pending resolution of that motion. The District Court subsequently granted plaintiffs’ motion as to Counts Seven and Eight, and reinstated those counts, but denied it as to Counts Four and Six. Seif amended his notice of appeal to include an appeal from that order; thus, No. 00-2139 is the appeal from the District Court’s rejection of Eleventh Amendment immunity for Seif on Counts One, Three, Seven, and Eight. Denials of Eleventh Amendment immunity are immediately appealable under the collateral order doctrine. Puerto Rico Aqueduct and Sewer Authority v. Metcalf & Eddy, Inc., 506 U.S. 139, 144-47 (1993). The District Court also granted plaintiffs’ motion as to Counts Two, Four, Five, and Six to certify for interlocutory appeal under 28 U.S.C. S 1292(b) the followingcontrolling question of law as to which there is a substantial ground for difference of opinion and [as to which] an immediate appeal . . . may advance the ultimate termination of the instant litigation: Is Defendant Seif entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity from suit in federal court as to allegations of continuing violations of duties under the Pennsylvania program when ‘States with an approved State program shall implement, administer, enforce and maintain it in accordance with the [SMCRA], this chapter and the provisions of the approved States program,’ by 30 C.F.R. S 733.11? Plaintiffs thereafter successfully moved for permission to appeal in this Court, with the appeal docketed at No. 011683. Plaintiffs’ appeal and Seif ’s appeal have been 5 consolidated for disposition. We review the District Court’s ruling on Eleventh Amendment immunity de novo. Lavia v. Pennsylvania Dep’t of Corrections, 224 F.3d 190, 194-95 (3d Cir. 2000).