Miller v. State of Utah, et al.
- Summarized by Lars Fuller , BakerHostetler
- 9 years 16 hours ago
- Citation:
- Miller v. State of Utah, et al., No. 14-4155 (10th Cir. Jan. 12, 2016)
- Tag(s):
-
- Ruling:
- Tenth Circuit affirmed ruling of District Court (D. Utah) granting summary judgment in favor of governmental defendants based on sovereign immunity. Tenth Circuit agreed that claims for damages against the State of Utah, the Utah Division of Oil, Gas, and Mining, the Department of Natural Resources, and state employees acting in their official capacities were barred by sovereign immunity. The 11th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution barred suit against state agencies and employees in federal court absent a waiver by the state, and no waiver was present. Plaintiff's federal claims against employees in their individual capacity were barred by qualified immunity. Qualified immunity applied to protect government employees from liability for civil damages since, based on undisputed facts, as a matter of law their conduct did not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. Plaintiff failed to demonstrate that (1) defendants' actions violated a constitutional or statutory rights; and (2) the right was clearly established at the time of the defendants' unlawful conduct. Due process (5th and 14th Am.) prevent the federal government from depriving a person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. The Tenth Circuit agreed that plaintiff was entitled to constitutionally adequate notice prior to the destruction of personalty at the mine, but because the destruction was of personalty only, and the government had no actual knowledge of plaintiff's interest, the failure to give actual notice to plaintiff was reasonable. A government stipulation acknowledging a co-owner's 25% interest was not enough to put the government on notice of plaintiff's 75% interest. The government was not required to conduct a title search of the real property prior to destruction of the personalty. The Tenth Circuit found no substantive due process violation, rejecting plaintiff's argument that the government taking "shocked the conscience" by being "arbitrary and unrestrained by the established principles of private right and distributive justice."
- Procedural context:
- Plaintiff sued a private party and multiple government employees, alleging damages for loss of personalty based on lack of due process, among other claims. Governmental defendants moved for summary judgment, alleging sovereign immunity. District Court (D. Utah) granted motion, and plaintiff appealed to Tenth Circuit.
- Facts:
- In a non-bankruptcy case, former mine owners sued a private party and multiple government employees, alleging damages for loss of personalty based on lack of due process, among other claims. Case arose out of reclamation of Vipont Mine in Box Elder County, Utah. Plaintiff bought the mine in 1968 and handled compliance with state regulations himself. In 1994, the Utah Division of Oil, Gas, and Mining ("Division") sent plaintiff a letter directing him to file a Notice of Intention ("NOI") to conduct continuing mining operations. Plaintiff did not respond. A separate entity ("Celebration") filed an NOI for the mine in 1995. The Division advised Celebration that it was required to submit a map designating proposed mining areas. Celebration did not respond. Celebration later reconveyed 75% of the mine back to plaintiff via quit claim. In 2003, the Division created a map and sent it to Celebration. In 2006, Celebration's corporate parent ("Aurora") agreed to reclaim lands affected by Celebration's mining operations and to provide a letter of credit as surety. In 2009, Aurora filed for bankruptcy, and the Division made a demand on the surety. Aurora stipulated to conduct the reclamation at the mine. The stipulation indicated that Aurora then owned only 25% of the mine, but did not disclose that plaintiff was the 75% owner. Later, an entity calling itself "Silver Stone" contacted the Division to inquire about payment of permit fees at the mine, and identified itself as the 75% owner. Later that year, the Division notified Aurora that it was required to conduct the reclamation, and Aurora again stipulated it would do so. During the reclamation (cleanup, excavation, and regarding the property), Aurora's reclamation contractor destroyed personalty belonging to plaintiff. Two months later, plaintiff contacted the Division, demanding payment for the destruction of his personalty. After an administrative suit was dismissed, plaintiff sued Aurora's successor and various governmental agencies and employees for damages related to destruction of his personalty.
- Judge(s):
- Lucero, Gorsuch, McHugh
ABI Membership is required to access the full summary. Please Sign In using your ABI Member credentials. Not a Member yet? Join ABI now - it is absolutely worth it!
