Pere Marquette Rod & Gun Club, and L. William Sessions and David M. Sessions, Intervening v. F. Dale Robertson, in His Official Capacity as Chief of the United States Forest Service Mike Espy, in His Official Capacity as Secretary of Agriculture and the United States

Citations: 54 F.3d 777; 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 17694; 1995 WL 309005Docket: 93-2607

Court: Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit; May 18, 1995; Federal Appellate Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the district court's ruling favoring the defendants in a case involving the Pere Marquette Rod and Gun Club and related parties against federal officials regarding the Clay Banks Site Improvement Project, a plan aimed at addressing issues of trespassing and vandalism on adjacent private properties. The plaintiffs raised three main issues: the validity of the improvement project, the lack of a hearing on potential bad faith by agency employees, and the denial of their motion to retain jurisdiction. The court found the plaintiffs' arguments to be without merit.

The Clay Banks Site, a federally owned 47-acre area on the Pere Marquette River, was designated under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act in 1978. Increased river usage from 1983 to 1990 led to significant trespassing problems for the plaintiffs. In response, the U.S. Forest Service, starting in 1990, developed the Clay Banks Site Project Plan to alleviate these concerns. Although the plan underwent modifications based on plaintiff feedback, the plaintiffs remained dissatisfied and pursued appeals up the Forest Service hierarchy, where further adjustments were made to ensure monitoring of the plan's effectiveness. The court noted these modifications reflected the Forest Service's responsiveness to the plaintiffs' complaints.

Regional Forester Marita's decision marked the Secretary of Agriculture's final action, leading to the club's lawsuit on February 8, 1993, with the Sessionses joining as plaintiffs. Cross motions for summary judgment were filed, resulting in a district court ruling favoring the defendants, supported by a well-reasoned opinion. The plaintiffs subsequently filed a timely appeal. The appellate court reviews summary judgments de novo, applying the same standard as the district court, which entails assessing evidence favorably for the nonmoving party to identify any genuine material fact disputes. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(c), summary judgment is appropriate when no genuine issue of material fact exists and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. 

The Administrative Procedures Act outlines various review standards for agency actions. Courts must confirm that agency findings are backed by substantial evidence, meaning the record must contain evidence a reasonable mind could deem adequate. Additionally, Section 706(2)(A) mandates an arbitrary and capricious standard for agency decision reviews, requiring consideration of relevant factors and a check for clear errors of judgment, as established in recent case law.

The plaintiffs challenge the Forest Service project plan on three grounds: it allegedly contradicts the explicit requirements of Sec. 1274(a)(16) regarding overuse damage; it exceeds agency authority by being consistent with a recreational river designation rather than a scenic designation; and it purportedly intends to increase angler numbers despite acknowledging current river overuse, which they argue is irrational and arbitrary. The district court, led by Judge Robert Holmes Bell, dismissed these challenges, providing a comprehensive opinion that the appellate court endorses. 

Finally, the plaintiffs contend that the district court erred by not holding a hearing on the alleged bad faith of Ranger Gusler and Supervisor Kelley. According to Supreme Court precedent, such an examination of agency personnel's mental processes is warranted only with strong evidence of bad faith or misconduct.

The assignment of error is reviewed under summary judgment standards to determine if plaintiffs established a genuine issue of material fact that would render summary judgment inappropriate. At least one disputed fact exists: the plaintiffs provided affidavits claiming agency employees made comments indicative of bad faith, which the employees denied. The determination of whether these facts are "material" follows the requirement that plaintiffs show a "strong showing" of bad faith or improper motive based on the review of administrative action. Analysis involves evaluating whether the agency acted irrationally and the strength of external evidence of bad faith. The district court correctly concluded there was no genuine issue regarding bad faith from the ranger and forest supervisor. The plaintiffs' affidavits contained allegations of negative comments and a photograph that the defendants countered with denials and clarifications, including that the regional forester exhibited concern for the plaintiffs’ interests by modifying project plans at their request. Plaintiffs failed to demonstrate bad faith by the regional forester, thus not meeting the necessary standard. 

Additionally, the district court denied the plaintiffs' motion to reconsider judgment under Rule 59(e), stating that the plaintiffs could seek administrative review if issues arose with the project plan. The plan includes provisions for ongoing review and potential modifications, providing an adequate remedy for the plaintiffs. Consequently, the district court's judgment is affirmed.