Summary of a Recent
Judicial Development in
Administrative Law

Plaintiffs Exhaust Administrative Remedies
for One Claim, Fail to Exhaust Other Claim

Harrison M. Pittman
Staff Attorney

Summary of Decision

In Idaho Sporting Congress, Inc. v. Rittenhouse, 305 F.3d 957 (9th Cir. 2002), the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that the plaintiffs failed to exhaust their administrative remedies for one of their claims against the United States Forest Service (USFS) pursuant to 7 U.S.C. § 6912(e) because the plaintiffs did not raise the claim during the administrative proceedings. The Ninth Circuit also held that another of the plaintiffs' claims had been properly raised during administrative proceedings and therefore was not barred from judicial review by the exhaustion of administrative remedies doctrine.

Background

Plaintiffs Idaho Sporting Congress, Inc. and Alliance for the Wild Rockies brought an action against the USFS to enjoin two timber sales in the Boise National Forest. See id. at 960. The United States District Court for the District of Idaho held that several of the plaintiffs' claims were barred from judicial review because they had not been properly exhausted during the administrative proceedings. See id. at 965. The plaintiffs appealed the district court's decision with respect to two of the rejected claims to the Ninth Circuit. See id. Of the two claims that the plaintiffs appealed, the district court apparently held that the first had not been raised during the administrative proceedings and therefore had not been properly exhausted and that the second had not been properly exhausted because it was not stated with sufficient clarity during the administrative proceedings. See id.

Arguments

The plaintiffs argued that the district court improperly determined that two of the several claims were precluded from judicial review for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. See id. The substantive merits of the two claims that were appealed are not relevant to this summary.

Analysis and Holdings

The Ninth Circuit rejected the plaintiffs' first claim, stating that "we have been unable to locate any reference to this claim in the administrative record." Id. It held that "[s]ince the Forest Service was not given notice of this claim sufficient to allow it to resolve the claim, the claim was not properly exhausted and is not subject to judicial review." Id.

Turning to the plaintiffs second claim, the court explained that "we have recognized that claimants who bring administrative appeals may try to resolve their difficulties by alerting the decision maker to the problem in general terms, rather than using precise legal formulations." Id. (citation omitted). It also explained that "[c]laims must be raised with sufficient clarity to allow the decision maker to understand and rule on the issue raised, but there is no bright-line standard as to when this requirement has been met and we must consider exhaustion arguments on a case-by-case basis." Id. (citation omitted). The court noted that during the administrative proceedings the plaintiffs described in general terms how the USFS violated federal law but did not refer specifically to the regulatory language that USFS had allegedly violated and held that "the [plaintiffs'] grievance is . . . fairly described as being directed at the Forest Service's perceived failure to specify adequate procedures to measure the impact of the proposed logging sales" as required by federal law. Id. at 966. It added that "under these circumstances . . it would be unreasonable to require that the . . . [plaintiffs] incant the magic words . . . [from the regulatory language] in order to leave the courtroom door open to a challenge citing the requirements" of the allegedly violated regulation. Id. The court thus rejected USFS's argument that the plaintiffs failed to exhaust their administrative remedies with respect to the second claim. See id.

The case was decided on September 17, 2002; this summary was posted Apr. 30, 2004.