Manning v. State, Dept. of Fish & Game, Alaska (2015)
-
Upload
scribd-government-docs -
Category
Documents
-
view
217 -
download
0
Transcript of Manning v. State, Dept. of Fish & Game, Alaska (2015)
-
7/25/2019 Manning v. State, Dept. of Fish & Game, Alaska (2015)
1/24
Notice: This opinion is subject to correction before publication in the PACIFICREPORTER.
Readers are requested to bring errors to the at tention of the Clerk of the Appel late Courts,
303 K Street, Anchorage, Alaska 99501, phone (907) 264-0608, fax (907) 264-0878, em ail
THESUPREMECOURTOFTHESTATEOFALASKA
KENNETHH.MANNING,
Appellant,
v.
STATEOFALASKA,DEPARTMENT
OFFISH&GAME,KEVINM.SAXBYandAHTNATENENEN,INC.,
Appellees.
,
)) SupremeCourtNo.S-15121
SuperiorCourtNo.3KN-11-00367CI
OPINIONONREHEARING
No.7036August28,2015
)))))
)) )))
AppealfromtheSuperiorCourtoftheStateofAlaska,ThirdJudicial District, Kenai, Anna Moran and Charles T.Huguelet,Judges.
Appearances: Kenneth H. Manning, pro se, Kasilof,Appellant.MichaelG.Mitchell,AssistantAttorneyGeneral,Anchorage, and Michael C. Geraghty, Attorney General,Juneau,forAppelleeStateofAlaska.
BrendaB.Page,SeniorAssistant Attorney General, Anchorage, and Michael C.Geraghty,AttorneyGeneral,Juneau,forAppelleeSaxby.JohnM.Starkey,LawOfficeofJohnSkyStarkey,LLC,Anchorage,forAppelleeAhtnaTeneNen,Inc.
Before:
Fabe,ChiefJustice,Winfree,Stowers,Maassen,andBolger,Justices.
WINFREE,Justice.
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected] -
7/25/2019 Manning v. State, Dept. of Fish & Game, Alaska (2015)
2/24
I. INTRODUCTION
TheAlaskaBoardofGamepromulgatedregulationsmanagingcaribou
huntinginGameManagementUnit13. Theregulationsallowhuntingunderthreetypes
ofpermits:acommunityharvestsubsistencepermit,anindividualsubsistencepermit,or a non-subsistence drawing permit. A hunter challenged the regulations on
constitutionalandstatutorygrounds,arguingthattheywrongfullyinterferedwithhis
subsistencehuntingrights,andalsosoughtajudiciallyimposedpublicreprimandofan
assistantattorneygeneralrepresentingtheBoard.Thesuperiorcourtdismissedtheclaim
againsttheattorney,grantedsummaryjudgmentupholdingtheregulations,andawarded
partialattorneysfeestotheStateandanintervenordefendant. Thehunterappeals. We
affirmthedismissalandsummaryjudgmentorders,butvacatetheattorneysfeesawards
andremandforfurtherproceedings.
II. FACTSANDPROCEEDINGS
ThiscaseinvolvesachallengetotheBoardofGames2010amendments
toregulationsforsubsistencecaribouhuntinginGameManagementUnit13,knownas
theNelchinabasin.1 Underthegoverningstatute,ifagamepopulationcanbeharvested
consistentwithsustainedyieldprinciples,theBoardmustdeterminetheamountofthe
harvestable portion that is reasonably necessary for subsistence uses.2 (This is
1 WerecentlydiscussedthehistoryofcaribouhuntingregulationintheNelchinabasininAlaska Fish & Wildlife Conservation Fund v. State(AFWCF II),___P.3d____,Op.No.6992at2-5,2015WL1393374,at*1-2(AlaskaMar.27,2015)(concerningsubsistencemooseandcaribouhuntinginGameManagementUnits11,12,
and13,collectivelyreferredtothereinastheCopperBasin)andAhtna Tene Nen v.State, Department of Fish & Game,288P.3d452,455-57(Alaska2012)(concerningsubsistencemooseandcaribouhuntinginGameManagementUnit13only,referredtothereinastheNelchinabasin).
2 AS16.05.258(b).
-2- 7036
-
7/25/2019 Manning v. State, Dept. of Fish & Game, Alaska (2015)
3/24
3commonly called the amount reasonably necessary for subsistence, or ANS.)
SubsistenceusesaremanagedateithertheTierIorTierIIlevel.4TierImanagementis
appropriatewhentheBoardconcludesthattheallowableharvestissufficienttoprovide
areasonableopportunityforallsubsistenceuses;otherwiseTierIImanagementisappropriate.5SubsistencehuntingunderTierIIismorelimited,withpermitsallocated
basedonspecificeligibilitycriteria.6
In1993 theBoarddetermined thattheANS for Nelchinacaribouwas
100% of the allowable harvest because the demand for subsistence hunting
exceed[ed]supply.TheBoardthereforemanagedtheNelchinacaribouhuntunder
TierII.FollowingastreamofcomplaintsthattheTierIIsystemdidnotprovide
sufficientsubsistenceopportunityforNelchinacaribou,theBoardbegandevelopingnew
regulationsin2006. TheBoardmadenewfindingsaboutthecustomaryandtraditional
usesofNelchinacaribouandadoptedregulationsrequiringthathuntersconformto
identifiedpractices. InMarch2009theBoarddeterminedtheANS tobe600-1,000
animals,accountingforthedemandofonlythosehuntersfollowingthecustomaryand
traditionalusepracticesidentifiedinitsfindings. BasedontherevisedANSandthat
yearsestimatedallowableharvestof1,000animals,theBoardtransitionedmanagement
oftheNelchinacaribouhuntfromaTierIItoaTierIsystem.Theregulationscreated
twotypesofsubsistencehuntingpermits: acommunityharvestpermitandanindividual
3 See 5AlaskaAdministrativeCode(AAC)99.025(c)(1)(2014).
4 AS16.05.258(b);State, Dept of Fish & Game v. Manning,161P.3d1215,
1216-17(Alaska2007).5 AS16.05.258(b);Manning,161P.3dat1216-17;5AAC92.990(a)(47),
(48).
6 Manning,161P.3dat1216-17;5AAC92.062.
-3- 7036
-
7/25/2019 Manning v. State, Dept. of Fish & Game, Alaska (2015)
4/24
permit.7 Theregulationswere challenged in superior courtand invalidated on the
groundsthat(1)theywereunconstitutionaland(2)theBoardsdecisiontochangethe
caribouhuntfromTierIItoTierIwasarbitraryandunreasonableandviolatedthe
AlaskaAdministrativeProcedureActsnoticerequirement.8
The Board addressed the invalidated regulations at its October 2010
meeting.Afterreviewingextensiveevidenceonpopulationandhuntingtrendsfor
Nelchinacaribou,theBoardagaincalculatedtheANSat600-1,000animals.Because
theestimatedallowableharvestof2,300caribouwasgreaterthantheANS,theBoard
concludedthattheNelchinacaribousubsistencehuntmustbemanagedunderTierI.
TheBoardthenreinstatedthebifurcatedcommunity/individualsubsistencehuntsystem,
withrevisions,andalsoallowedissuanceofnon-subsistencehuntdrawingpermits.9
Theregulationsestablishthatanygroupof25ormorepersonsmayapply
foracommunityharvestsubsistencepermitentitlingeachgroupmembertoharvestone
caribou during the regulatory year.10 The group must follow the customary and
traditional use pattern identified by the Board for community subsistence hunts.11
Individual subsistence permit holders also are entitled to harvest one caribou per
householdduringtheregulatoryyear,butarenotsubjecttothecommunityharvest
7 See Ahtna Tene Nen v. State, Dept of Fish & Game,288P.3d452,455-56(Alaska2012).
8 Id.at456.Therulingwasappealed,butwedismissedtheappealasmootaftertheBoardagainamendeditsregulations.Id.at458,463.
9 5AAC85.025(a)(8).See generally AFWCF II,___P.3d___,Op.No.
6992at2-5,2015WL1393374,at*1-2(AlaskaMar.27,2015)(describingamendedpermittingschemeandrestrictions);Ahtna Tene Nen,288P.3dat456-57.
10 5AAC85.025(a)(8),92.072(c)(1).
11 5AAC92.072(c)(1)(D).
-4- 7036
-
7/25/2019 Manning v. State, Dept. of Fish & Game, Alaska (2015)
5/24
huntscustomaryandtraditionaluserestrictions.12 Upto300cariboumaybetakeneach
yearundercommunityharvestpermits,whilenocapisplacedonthetotalnumberof
caribouthatmaybetakenunderindividualpermits.13Allsubsistencepermitholdersare
subjecttothesamehuntingregulationsandtheirhuntingseasonsandareasarethesame.14Andallsubsistencepermitsprohibittakingmorethanonecaribouperhousehold
andhuntingcaribouinanyotherlocationduringthepermityear.15
InApril2011KennethManningfiledsuitagainsttheAlaskaDepartment
ofFishandGame(Department)andAssistantAttorneyGeneralKevinSaxby.Manning
soughtaninjunctionpreventingtheDepartmentfromimplementingtheNelchinacaribou
communitysubsistencehuntregulationsonvariousconstitutionalandstatutorygrounds,
andsoughtajudiciallyimposedreprimandofSaxbyforallegedviolationsoflawwhile
hewasrepresentingtheBoard.AhtnaTeneNen(Ahtna)waspermittedtointerveneas
adefendant.ShortlythereafterthesuperiorcourtdismissedtheclaimagainstSaxby,
concludingthathewasentitledtodiscretionaryandqualifiedimmunityandthatthecourt
couldnotgrantthespecificreliefManningsought.
InlateOctober2011theDepartmentissuedanemergencyorderclosingthe
Nelchinacaribouhunttonon-subsistencedrawingpermitholders. Manning,whoheld
anindividualsubsistencehuntpermit,moved foranemergencyexpeditedexparte
preliminaryinjunctionenjoiningtheclosure,butthesuperiorcourtdeniedthemotion
becauseManninglackedstanding.InearlyDecember2011theDepartmentclosedthe
12 5AAC85.025(a)(8),92.071(a).
13 5AAC85.025(a)(8).
14 Id.;5AAC92.072(d).
15 5AAC92.050(a)(4)(I).
-5- 7036
-
7/25/2019 Manning v. State, Dept. of Fish & Game, Alaska (2015)
6/24
individualsubsistencehunt,andthreedayslatertheDepartmentclosedthecommunity
harvestsubsistencehunt.
Manning filed a summary judgment motion in June 2012, and the
DepartmentandAhtnafiledcross-motionsforsummaryjudgment.InApril2013thesuperiorcourtdeniedManningsmotionandgrantedtheDepartmentsandAhtnas
cross-motions,concludingthattheBoardsdecisiontochangetheNelchinacaribouhunt
fromaTierIIhunttoaTierIhuntwasreasonableandconsistentwithstatute16andthat
thenewregulationswereconstitutionalanddidnotviolatethepublictrustdoctrine. The
courtalsorejectedManningsargumentthattheDepartmentprovidedinsufficientnotice
undertheAdministrativeProcedureActbeforeitclosedtheindividualandcommunity
harvestsubsistencehuntsbyemergencyorder.
DuringandfollowingthesummaryjudgmentproceedingsManningfiled
severalmotionstodisqualifythepresidingjudgeandamotionfornewproceedings,
allegingthejudgewasbiasedandincompetent.Eachmotionwasdenied.
TheDepartmentandAhtnamovedforattorneysfees,andthesuperior
courtawardedthempartialfeesasprevailingpartiesunderAlaskaCivilRule82. The
courtconcludedthat15ofthe30countsinManningscomplaintrequestedconstitutional
reliefandwerenotfrivolous,soManningcouldnotbeliableforattorneysfeesincurred
inconnectionwiththoseclaimsunderAS09.60.010. 17Thecourtawardedattorneys
16 Specificallythesuperiorcourtconcluded:(1)thedecisiontochangetheANSforNelchinacaribouwasreasonableandsupportedbysufficientevidence;(2)theANSrangecalculatedbytheBoardinOctober2010wasreasonableandsupportedbysufficientevidence;and(3)theBoardsdecisiontotransitionfromaTierIItoaTierI
huntwassupportedbysufficientevidence.
17 AS09.60.010(c)(2)providesthatacourt:
[M]aynotorderaclaimanttopaytheattorneyfeesofthe(continued...)
-6- 7036
-
7/25/2019 Manning v. State, Dept. of Fish & Game, Alaska (2015)
7/24
feesforalltimespentonnon-constitutional,proceduralissues,andfor50%ofthetime
spentonworkinwhichthetypeofclaimcouldnotbeidentified.Thecourtalsoreduced
thehourlyratestheDepartmentandAhtnaclaimedbyhalfbecauseManningwas
indigent,resultinginfinalawardsof$4,573totheDepartmentand$1,080toAhtna.Manningappeals.
III. STANDARDOFREVIEW
Wereviewgrantsofmotionstodismissandgrantsofsummaryjudgment
denovo....18
Wepresumethatregulationsarevalidandweplacetheburdenofproving
otherwiseonthechallengingparty:19
We review an agencys regulation for whether it isconsistentwithandreasonablynecessarytoimplementthestatutes authorizing [its] adoption. Toward this end weconsider:(1)whether[theagency]exceededitsstatutoryauthority in promulgating the regulation; (2) whether theregulationisreasonableandnotarbitrary;and(3)whetherthe
17 (...continued)opposingpartydevotedtoclaimsconcerningconstitutionalrightsiftheclaimant...didnotprevailinassertingtheright,theactionorappealassertingtherightwasnotfrivolous,andtheclaimantdidnothavesufficienteconomicincentiveto
bring the action or appeal regardless of the constitutionalclaimsinvolved.
18
Smith v. State,282P.3d300,303(Alaska2012)(citingInterior Cabaret,Hotel, Rest. & Retailers Assn v. Fairbanks N. Star Borough,135P.3d1000,1002(Alaska2006)).
19 West v. State, Bd. of Game,248P.3d689,694(Alaska2010)(citingLakoshv. Alaska Dept of Envtl. Conservation,49P.3d1111,1114(Alaska2002)).
-7- 7036
-
7/25/2019 Manning v. State, Dept. of Fish & Game, Alaska (2015)
8/24
regulation conflicts with other statutes or constitutionalprovisions.[20]
Reviewingwhetheraregulationisreasonableandnotarbitraryconsistsprimarilyof
ensuringthattheagencyhastakenahardlookatthesalientproblemsandhasgenuinely
engagedinreasoneddecisionmaking.21
Weapplythereasonablebasisstandardtoquestionsoflawinvolving
agencyexpertiseorthedeterminationoffundamentalpolicieswithinthescopeofthe
agencysstatutoryfunctions.22Wealsoreviewanagencysapplicationoflawtofacts
underthereasonablebasisstandard. 23Butweexerciseourindependentjudgmentin
reviewingwhetheranagencyactionisconsistentwiththeAlaskaConstitution.24
Wereviewdenovowhetherthetrialcourtappliedthelawcorrectlyin
awardingattorneysfees.25
20 Wilber v. State, Commercial Fisheries Entry Commn,187P.3d460,46465(Alaska2008)(firstalterationinoriginal)(quotingGrunert v. State,109P.3d924,929(Alaska2005)).
21 Interior Alaska Airboat Assn v. State, Bd. of Game,18P.3d686,690
(Alaska2001)(citingTongass Sport Fishing Assn v. State,866P.2d1314,1319(Alaska1994);Gilbert v. State, Dept of Fish & Game,803P.2d391,398(Alaska1990)).
22 Davis Wright Tremaine LLP v. State, Dept of Admin.,324P.3d293,299(Alaska2014)(quotingMarathon Oil Co. v. State, Dept of Natural Res.,254P.3d1078,1082(Alaska2011)).
23 Alaska Fish & Wildlife Conservation Fund v. State, Dept of Fish & Game,
Bd. of Fisheries(AFWCF I),289P.3d903,907(Alaska2012)(citingKoyukuk RiverBasin Moose Co-Mgmt. Team v. Bd. of Game,76P.3d383,386(Alaska2003)).
24 Id.
25 Lake & Peninsula Borough Assembly v. Oberlatz,329P.3d214,221(Alaska2014)(alterationomitted)(quotingMarron v. Stromstad,123P.3d992,998
(continued...)
-8- 7036
-
7/25/2019 Manning v. State, Dept. of Fish & Game, Alaska (2015)
9/24
IV. DISCUSSION
A. TheRegulationManagingTheNelchinaCaribouHuntUnderTierI
IsConsistentWithTheStatuteAndIsReasonableAndNotArbitrary.
ManningarguesthattheBoardsdecisiontomanagetheNelchinacaribou
huntunderTierIexecutedthrough5AAC85.025(a)(8)26isunlawful,andthatthe
huntmustbemanagedunderTierII.ButtheBoardsdecisionislawfulsolongas
5AAC85.025(a)(8)isconsistentwiththestatuteandisreasonableandnotarbitrary. 27
AlaskaStatute16.05.258(b)requirestheBoardtoadoptregulationsmanagingagame
populationunder Tier II onlyif theharvestableportionof the .. .population isnot
sufficienttoprovideareasonableopportunityforsubsistenceuses.28Weconstrue
Manningsargumenttobethat5AAC85.025(a)(8)isinconsistentwithitsauthorizing
statuteAS16.05.258(b)becauseitimpermissiblyallowstheBoardtomanagethe
subsistence hunt under Tier I when the allowable harvest of Nelchina caribou is
insufficient to provide a reasonable opportunity for subsistence uses. Mannings
argumentthusturnsonwhethertheBoardlawfullycouldconcludethatareasonable
25
(...continued)(Alaska2005))(internalquotationmarksomitted).
26 5 AAC 85.025(a)(8) establishes bag limits and hunting seasons forNelchinacaribouunderaTierImanagementscheme.
27 See Wilber v. State, Commercial Fisheries Entry Commn ,187P.3d460,464-65(Alaska2008)(citingGrunert v. State,109P.3d924,929(Alaska2005)).ItisundisputedthattheBoardhasstatutoryauthoritytopromulgateregulationsmanagingsubsistence game hunts. See AS 16.05.258. The fact that the Board previously
determinedtheNelchinacaribouhunthadtobemanagedunderTierIIdoesnotaffectthestandardofrevieworanalysis.See AFWCF I,289P.3dat912(notingBoardofFisheriesisnotrequiredtostrictlyadheretoitsearlydeterminations,especiallywhen
providednewcontradictorydata).
28 AS16.05.258(b)(4).
-9- 7036
-
7/25/2019 Manning v. State, Dept. of Fish & Game, Alaska (2015)
10/24
opportunityforsubsistenceusesexists.Themeaningofreasonableopportunityfor
subsistence uses involves the Boards expertise and is committed to the Boards
discretionbystatute,29sotheBoardsdeterminationthatareasonableopportunityexists
isconsistentwithstatuteifthedeterminationhasareasonablebasis. 30
ManningarguestheBoardcannotconcludethatareasonableopportunity
forsubsistenceusesexistsbecausetheBoardreliedonanANSvalueithadunlawfully
reduce[d].AndbecausetheBoardmustmanageahuntattheTierIIlevelifthe
harvestablesurplusisbelowtheANS,31theBoardcouldnotreasonablyconcludethat
areasonableopportunityforsubsistenceusesexistedifitreliedonanimproperANS
value.
ManningarguestheANSdeterminationisunlawfulintwoways:(1)the
BoardviolatedtheAlaskaConstitutionbyrelyingonimpermissibleusercharacteristics
initsANScalculation;and(2)theANSdeterminationisunreasonable.Althoughthe
ANS determination was published as a regulation 5 AAC 99.025(a)(4) the
29
See AS 16.05.258(f) (For purposes of this section, reasonableopportunitymeansanopportunity,as determined by the appropriate board,thatallowsasubsistenceusertoparticipateinasubsistencehuntorfisherythatprovidesanormallydiligentparticipantwithareasonableexpectationofsuccessoftakingoffishorgame.(emphasisadded)).
30 See Davis Wright Tremaine LLP v. State, Dept of Admin.,324P.3d293,299(Alaska2014)(citingMarathon Oil Co. v. State, Dept of Natural Res.,254P.3d1078,1082(Alaska2011)).
31
ALASKA
DEP
TOF
FISH
&GAME
,DIV
.OF
SUBSISTENCE
,GUIDELINESFOR
PREPARINGOPTIONSFORTHEALASKABD.OFFISHERIES&ALASKABD.OFGAMEFORAMOUNT REASONABLYNECESSARYFORSUBSISTENCE(ANS)FINDINGS1(vers.1.0,2009);see also 5AAC99.025(c)(1)(definingANSasthetotalamountofanimalsfroma population that must be available for subsistence hunting in order to provide areasonableopportunityforsubsistenceuses).
-10- 7036
-
7/25/2019 Manning v. State, Dept. of Fish & Game, Alaska (2015)
11/24
determinationisanapplicationoflawtofactswhichisreviewedforareasonablebasis. 32
TheBoardsdiscretionunderthisstandardislimited,however:TheBoardsultimate
decisionsmustbereasonablyrelatedtothepurposesofthesubsistencelaw;inother
words,theBoardmaynotmanipulate[anunderlyingdetermination]simplytoachieveapredeterminedoutcome.33
1. TheBoardsANScalculationwasnotbasedonunconstitutional
factors.
Manning asserts that the Board improperly used rail belt and urban
residency,community,and/orAhtnaracialcustomsandtraditionstopre-determine
whoisorisnotasubsistenceuserincalculatingtheANS,andassertsthatconsideration
of these factors violates the Alaska Constitution. (Emphasis in original.) But
AS16.05.258(b)referstoANSintermsofsubsistence uses,notusers.34 Therecord
reveals that the Board included a broad variety of subsistence uses in its ANS
calculation.AndeveniftheBoardhaddefinedsubsistenceusesofNelchinacaribouto
includeonlylocalcommunityhuntingpractices,itwouldnotnecessarilyhaveviolated
theAlaskaConstitutionconsideringcertainuserspatternstodefinethesubsistence
uses placing demand on a game population affects only that game populationsclassification;itdoesnotaffectanyindividualsabilitytoobtainasubsistencepermit
32 See AFWCF I,289P.3dat907(citingKoyukuk River Basin Moose Co-Mgmt. Team v. Bd. of Game,76P.3d383,386(Alaska2003))(applicationoflawtofactsisreviewedforreasonablebasis);see also State v. Kenaitze Indian Tribe,894P.2d632, 641 (Alaska 1995) (stating fish and game allocation decisions generally are
reviewedforreasonablebasis).33 Native Vill. of Elim v. State ,990P.2d1,11(Alaska1999).
34 AS16.05.258(b)states,[T]heboardshalldeterminetheamountoftheharvestableportionthatisreasonablynecessaryforsubsistenceuses.
-11- 7036
-
7/25/2019 Manning v. State, Dept. of Fish & Game, Alaska (2015)
12/24
ortoutilizethatpermitinasubsistencearea.35 TheBoardssubsistencedefinition
appliesequallytoallofAlaskascitizens. Accordingly,theBoardsANScalculation
doesnotimplicate,norviolate,theequalaccess,uniformapplication,orequalprotection
clausesoftheAlaskaConstitution. 36
2. TheBoardsANScalculationisreasonable.
ManningalsoassertsthattheANScalculationwasimproperlyreducedfor
thepurposeofconvertingthehunttoTierIandimplementingacommunitysubsistence
hunt.ButManningpointstonothingintherecordindicatingtheBoardmanipulate[d]
theANSsimplytoachieveapredeterminedoutcome.37Onthecontrary,considerable
evidenceintherecordjustifiestheBoardsANScalculationanddemonstratesthatthe
Boardtookahardlookatthesalientproblemsand...genuinelyengagedinreasoned
decisionmaking.38
TheBoardreviewedextensiveevidenceonlong-termharvest,customary
andtraditionalusepatterns,andcariboupopulationtrends,anditconsideredanumber
ofproposalsfordefiningsubsistenceusesofNelchinacaribouinmakingitsANS
determination. It concluded the 600-1,000 ANS best fit the available data after
considering at least eight possible ANS options. The Board identified substantial
evidentiarysupportjustifyingthecustomaryandtraditionalusedefinitionappliedinits
ANS determination. And the Board continued to consider a number of proposed
35 AFWCF I,289P.3dat910.
36 See id.
37 Native Vill. of Elim,990P.2dat11.
38 Interior Alaska Airboat Assn v. State, Bd. of Game,18P.3d686,690(Alaska2001)(citingTongass Sport Fishing Assn v. State,866P.2d1314,1319(Alaska1994);Gilbert v. State, Dept of Fish & Game,803P.2d391,398(Alaska1990)).
-12- 7036
-
7/25/2019 Manning v. State, Dept. of Fish & Game, Alaska (2015)
13/24
managementregimesincludingaTierIIhuntaftercalculatingtheANS,suggesting
theANScalculationwasnotmerelyapretextforswitchingtoaTierIhunt.TheBoard
concludedthatTierIIisoff[the]tableonlyaftercomparingtheadoptedANStothe
harvestablesurplus.AlthoughthereissomeevidencethattheBoardpreferredthattheANS
determinationultimatelyallowforaTierIhunt,itdoesnotappearthattheANSwas
improperly manipulated toachieve apredeterminedoutcome. Therecordprovides
sufficientevidentiarysupportdemonstratingthattheBoardsANScalculationisboth
procedurallyandsubstantivelyreasonable.AccordinglytheBoardreasonablyconcluded
thatthereisareasonableopportunityforsubsistenceuses.ManagingtheNelchina
caribouhuntunderTierIthrough5AAC85.025(a)(8)isconsistentwiththestatuteand
isreasonableandnotarbitrary.
B. The 2011 Closures By Emergency Order Did Not Violate The
AdministrativeProcedureActsNoticeRequirements.
Manning contends that the Department violated the Administrative
ProcedureActbyfailingtogivepermitapplicantssufficientnoticethattheindividual
subsistenceandthenon-subsistencedrawinghuntsmaybeclosedbyEmergencyOrderprior to achieving the annual harvest quota, while allowing or granting a priority
preferenceforcommunitypermithunters(CHP)tocontinuetohuntthesameresource
prior to the annual harvest quota. (Emphasis in original.) Manningappears to be
referring to the emergency closures of the Nelchina caribou hunt in 2011.39
39
AlthoughManningreferstotheindividualsubsistenceandnon-subsistencedrawinghuntclosuresinhisbrief,ManningsAdministrativeProcedureActchallengeinthesuperiorcourtinvolvedonlytheindividualandcommunityharvestsubsistencehunt closures; the court previously had denied Manning standing to challenge thedrawinghuntclosure. AccordinglyweconsiderManningsAdministrativeProcedure
(continued...)
-13- 7036
-
7/25/2019 Manning v. State, Dept. of Fish & Game, Alaska (2015)
14/24
AlaskaStatute16.05.060authorizesclosuresbyemergencyorders,whichhavetheforce
oflaw.40EmergencyordersarenotsubjecttotheAdministrativeProcedureAct,sono
noticeisrequiredpriortotheirissuance. 41Manningsconcernaboutthethree-day
difference in the emergency closures of the individual subsistence hunt and thecommunitysubsistencehunthaslittletodowithnotice;totheextenthisconcernisabout
equalprotection,hisargumentisundevelopedandwedonotconsiderit.
C. TheClaimAgainstSaxbyWasProperlyDismissed.
The superior court dismissed Mannings claim against Saxby on the
alternative grounds of discretionary function immunity, official immunity, and the
courtslackofauthoritytograntthereliefrequested. Manningprovidesnoauthority
establishingthatthesuperiorcourthasgeneraljurisdictiontoissueapublicreprimand
forattorneymisconductextrinsictocourtproceedings.42 NordoesManningciteany
authoritythatthesuperiorcourthasgeneraljurisdictiontoissueareprimandagainsta
publicofficialforconductextrinsictocourtproceedings. InsofarasManningmayhave
beenrequestingdeclaratoryreliefagainstSaxby,suchreliefisnotavailableinthiscase:
39 (...continued)Act challenge on appeal to relate only to the individual and community harvestsubsistencehuntemergencyclosures.
40 WenotethatMannings2011individualsubsistencehuntpermitexpresslystates: This caribou hunt may be closed by Emergency Order (EO). It is yourresponsibilitytobeawareofhuntclosures.
41
AS16.05.060(c),44.62.190.42 Theproperforumforseekingattorneydisciplineforsuchmisconductisthe
AlaskaBarAssociation. SeeAlaskaBarR.10(c).Asuperiorcourtmay,ofcourse,sanctionanattorneyformisconductoccurring in the course of courtproceedings.See,e.g.,AlaskaR.Civ.P.16(f),77(j);see alsoAlaskaBarR.9(c).
-14- 7036
-
7/25/2019 Manning v. State, Dept. of Fish & Game, Alaska (2015)
15/24
simply asking that a public official be reprimanded does not present a justiciable
controversy.43
D. ManningsOtherIssuesLackMerit.
ManningarguesthatconditioningTierIeligibilityoncommunitycriteriaviolates article I, section 1 and article VIII, sections 3, 15, and 17 of the Alaska
Constitution,andthattheseargumentsmustbereviewedunderstrictscrutiny. 44 We
construetheseargumentstoallegethatthecommunityharvestpermiteligibilitycriteria
areunconstitutional.ButweupheldtheconstitutionalityofthesecriteriainAFWCF II.45
Manningalsoarguesthatthesuperiorcourterredbydenyinghimstanding
tochallengethe2011drawinghuntemergencyclosureorder.Theissueisnowmoot,
43 See State v. Am. Civil Liberties Union of Alaska,204P.3d364,368(Alaska2009) (noting that under Alaskas declaratory judgment statute, AS 22.10.020(g),declaratoryrelief isappropriateonlywhenanactualcontroversyexists);see alsoThuma v. Kroschel,506N.W.2d14,21(Minn.App.1993)(holdingallegationthatcity
mayoractedultravires,withoutmore,couldnotsupportanactionfordeclaratoryjudgment because there was no genuine, adversarial conflict);Port Isabel/S. PadreIsland Taxpayers Assn v. S. Padre Island,721S.W.2d405,406-07(Tex.App.1986)(refusingtograntdeclaratoryrelieffortownsallegedfailuretoputataxrollback
provisionontheballotwhenalatertaxrollbackprovisionmadeitontotheballotbutwasdefeatedbecausedeclaratoryreliefwouldbe nothingmorethana reprimandto the[town]foritsrejectionof[the]firstpetition).
44 Manningalsoarguesthecriteriaviolatethepublictrustdoctrine,butthepublictrustdoctrinewasconstitutionalize[d]inthecommonuseclauseofarticleVIII,
section3;soManningspublictrustargumentissimplyanotherwayofarguingasection3violation. Owsichek v. State, Guide Licensing & Control Bd.,763P.2d488,493(Alaska1988).
45 ___P.3d___,Op.No.6992at6-10,2015WL1393374at*2-4(AlaskaMar.27,2015).
-15- 7036
-
7/25/2019 Manning v. State, Dept. of Fish & Game, Alaska (2015)
16/24
astheorderappliedonlytothe2011-2012Nelchinacaribouhunt,and wedeclineto
addressit.46
Manningbrieflyraisesseveralotherpointsonappeal.Specificallyhe
contendsthat:theregulationsviolatethesustainableyieldrequirementofarticleVIII,section4oftheAlaskaConstitution;theprohibitiononUnit13permitholdershunting
caribouormooseelsewhereinthestateisunconstitutional;therestrictionsonakilled
cariboususeareunlawful;theregulationsunlawfullygrantandprovideaspecial
preferencepriority grantingnewaboriginal rights inviolation[of the]Alaska Native
ClaimsSettlementAct;andthedenialsofhismotionsregardingthepresidingjudges
allegedbiaswereerroneous.Butbecausehisargumentsonthesepointsareconclusory
andinadequatelydeveloped,weconsiderthemwaived.47
E. TheAttorneysFeesAwardsWereCalculatedImproperlyAndMust
BeVacated.
ThesuperiorcourtawardedtheDepartmentandAhtnaattorneysfeesunder
AlaskaCivilRule82fordefending15ofthe30countsinthecomplaint,reasoningthat
ManningwasimmuneunderAS09.60.010(c)(2)frompayingfeesrelatedtothe15
countsthecourtbelievedconcernedconstitutionalclaims.Manningarguesthatthecourterredbecauseeachofthe30countsconcernsaconstitutionalright.
ThesuperiorcourtdidnotindicatewhichcountsofManningscomplaint
concernedconstitutionalrights.Butbasedonourdenovoreview,weconcludethat19
46
See Ahtna Tene Nen v. State, Dept of Fish & Game,288P.3d452,457(Alaska 2012) (A claim is moot if it has lost its character as a present, livecontroversy.(quotingKleven v. Yukon-Koyukuk Sch. Dist.,853P.2d518,523(Alaska1993))).
47 See Adamson v. Univ. of Alaska,819P.2d886,889n.3(Alaska1991).
-16- 7036
-
7/25/2019 Manning v. State, Dept. of Fish & Game, Alaska (2015)
17/24
ofthe30countsconcernedprotectionofconstitutionalrights.48Fifteencountsclearly
concernedprotection of constitutional rights, including the right to equal access to
49 50subsistencehuntingopportunities, therighttosustainableyieldmanagement, andthe
righttoequalprotection. 51Othercountspresentcloserquestions.Threecountsinvolvedclaims that the Board failed to consider relevant statutory factors and that its
administrative process was flawed, leading to its promulgation of the allegedly
unconstitutionalcommunityharvestsystemandtheallegedeliminationofindividual
subsistencerights. Althoughtheseclaimscanbeconstruedtoassertastatutoryrightto
alawfuladministrativeprocess,theyaremorecorrectlyviewedasseekingtoprotectthe
constitutional common use right from improper infringement by agency action.
Likewise,ManningallegedinonecountthatunderAS16.05.258(b)requiringthat
game management provide a reasonable opportunity for subsistence uses the
regulationsexceededtheBoardsstatutoryauthority.Althoughthisfaciallyisastatutory
argument,AS16.05.258(b)functionstoprotectAlaskansconstitutionalrighttoequal
48 Specifically,counts1,2,3,4,8,9,10,11,12,14,15,16,18,21,23,26,27,28,and29concernedconstitutionalrights.
49 SeeAlaskaConst.art.VIII,3,17; State, Dept of Fish & Game v.Manning,161P.3d1215,1224(Alaska2007);McDowell v. State,785P.2d1,8-9(Alaska1989);see also Alaska Fish & Wildlife Conservation Fund v. State,347P.3d97,102(Alaska2015)(Section15providesthatthereshallbe[n]oexclusiverightorspecialprivilegeoffishery .. .in thenaturalwatersof theState; thoughtheclause
addressesonlyfishing,weapplyitsunderlyingprincipleswheninterpretingsections3and17.(alterationsinoriginal)(quotingAlaskaConst.art.VIII,15)).
50 AlaskaConst.artVIII,4.
51 Id.art.I,1.
-17- 7036
-
7/25/2019 Manning v. State, Dept. of Fish & Game, Alaska (2015)
18/24
accesstosubsistencehuntingopportunities52evenabsentthisstatute,Manningwould
haveaconstitutionalbasisforhisclaimagainsttheBoardforfailingtoprotectthis
right.53Butitisnotevidentthattheremaining11countsconcernedconstitutionalrights,
soRule82attorneysfeesmightbeawardedforthoseclaims.As we recently explained inLake & Peninsula Borough Assembly v.
Oberlatz,[d]eterminingwhether[claimants]areimmunefrompayingattorney[s]fees
to...defendantsrequiresconsiderationofthenatureof each claim against those
defendants.54 AndRule82attorney[s]feesmaybeawardedonlyforworkthatwould
nothavebeennecessarybutforanon-constitutionalclaim;AS09.60.010(c)(2)applies
toworkinwhichaconstitutionalclaimisimplicatedinanyway. 55
52 See id.art.VIII,3,17;Manning,161P.3dat1224;McDowell,785P.2dat8-9.
53 Lake & Peninsula Borough v. Oberlatz,329P.3d214,227(Alaska2014)(Itdoesnotmatterthatthedeprivations[oftheplaintiffsconstitutionalrights]alsoviolatedstatutesdesignedtoregulatethe[constitutional]right...orthatthestatutes
provide the rule of law for determining whether the constitutional right has been
infringed.Theultimatequestioniswhetherthe[claimants]soughttoprotectthemselvesfromdeprivationoftheirconstitutionalrights....).
54 Id.(emphasisadded).
55 Id.at228(citingFox v. Vice,131S.Ct.2205,2215(2011)).Fox v. Viceinvolved the federal rule that a plaintiff cannot be liable for attorneys fees under42 U.S.C. 1988 unless the action was frivolous, unreasonable, or withoutfoundation. 131S.Ct.at2213(quotingChristiansburg Garment Co. v. EEOC,434U.S.412,421(1978)).ThatruleandAS09.60.010(c)(2)areanalogousinthatboth
servetoprotectplaintiffsseekingtoprotectimportantrightsfrompayingattorneysfeesiftheydonotprevail,unlessthedefendantincurredthefeesdefendingagainstaclaimthat did not concern protection of an important right e.g., a frivolous or non-constitutionalclaim.Compare id.(stating 1988intendedtoremovecostbarrierofvindicatingonescivilrights),withDebateonC.S.H.B.145(FIN)BeforetheSenate,
(continued...)
-18- 7036
-
7/25/2019 Manning v. State, Dept. of Fish & Game, Alaska (2015)
19/24
The superior court awarded attorneys fees for work done on non
constitutional,proceduralissues.Itisunclearwhetherthecourtwasreferringtowork
defending solely against non-constitutional claims or work on procedural issues
involvingthemeritsofaconstitutionalclaim.Rule82attorneysfeesareallowableonlyfortheformer.Workongeneralproceduralissues,suchasthemotionstodisqualifythe
presidingjudge,cannotbedisconnectedfromManningsconstitutionalclaims. Unless
theDepartmentorAhtnacanprovidesufficientlydetaileddocumentationsegregatingthe
timespentonspecificproceduralworkbyclaimtype,thecourtmustassumethatthe
billedtimeforproceduralworkwasallconnectedtoManningsconstitutionalclaims.
Thisassumptionprotectsagainstthepossibilityofimproperlyawardingfeesforwork
respondingtoconstitutionalclaims.Onremand,thesuperiorcourtshouldnotaward
attorneysfeesforworkonaproceduralissueunlesstheapplicantprovidestherequisite
documentationthattheproceduralissueisrelatedsolelytoanon-constitutionalclaim.
Based on its conclusion that 15 of Mannings 30 counts involved
constitutional claims, the superior court also awarded the Department and Ahtna
attorneysfeesfor50%ofworkforwhichthenatureoftheclaiminvolvedwasnot
identified. Sucha prorataapproachisimproper. Althoughwe do notholdthat a
superiorcourtcanneverawardpartialfeesforworkwhenthetypeofclaimcannotbe
clearlyidentified,thecourtmustensurethatfeesarenotawardedforworkinvolving
constitutionalclaims.56 Simplyawardingaproratashareofattorneysfeesbasedonthe
55 (...continued)23dLeg.,1stSess.(May20,2003)(statementsofSen.Seekins)(What[AS09.60.010]
reallydoesisitretainstheessenceofthepublicinterestlitigantdoctrineforthecasesthatrelatetoourmostimportantrights,theconstitutionalrights.Andactuallyitenlargesthoseprotections.).
56 AstheUnitedStatesSupremeCourtexplainedinFox:(continued...)
-19- 7036
-
7/25/2019 Manning v. State, Dept. of Fish & Game, Alaska (2015)
20/24
ratioofnon-constitutionaltoconstitutionalclaimswouldbetoriskrequiringaplaintiff
topaydefendantsattorney[]sfeesincurredindefeatinghis[constitutional]claims. 57
SuchanapproachisimpermissibleunderAS09.60.010(c)(2)andmaynotbeappliedon
remand.Defendantsseekingattorneysfeesforworkonnon-constitutionalclaimsmustsubmitappropriatedocumentationtomeettheburdenofestablishingentitlementtoan
award.58 Ifdefendantsdonotdemonstratethattheworkwouldnothavebeen
performedinordertodefendagainstthe[constitutionalclaims],ortoputitdifferently,
56 (...continued)Theessentialgoalinshiftingfees[under42U.S.C.1988]istodoroughjustice,nottoachieveauditingperfection. Sotrialcourtsmaytakeintoaccounttheiroverallsenseofasuit,and may use estimates in calculating and allocating anattorneystime....
Butthetrialcourtmustapplythecorrectstandard....Thatmeansthetrialcourtmustdeterminewhetherthefees
requestedwouldnothaveaccruedbutforthefrivolousclaim....Atrialcourthaswidediscretionwhen,butonlywhen,itcallsthegamebytherightrules.
131S.Ct.at2216-17(citationsomitted).
57 Harris v. Maricopa Cnty. Superior Court,631F.3d963,972(9thCir.2011)(reversingprorataawardof42U.S.C.1988attorneysfeesbasedonratiooffrivoloustonon-frivolousclaims);see also McKenna v. City of Phila.,582F.3d447,458(3d Cir. 2009) (rejecting calculation of attorneys fees award using a simple
mathematical approach based on the ratio between a plaintiffs successful andunsuccessfulclaims(quotingMcKenna v. City of Phila.,Civ.ActionNo.07-110,2008WL4435939,at*13(E.D.Pa.Sept.30,2008))).
58 Fox,131S.Ct.at2216(quotingHensley v. Eckerhart,461U.S.424,437(1983)).
-20- 7036
-
7/25/2019 Manning v. State, Dept. of Fish & Game, Alaska (2015)
21/24
butfortheneedtodefendagainstthe[non-constitutional]claims,feesassociatedwith
thatworkcannotbeawarded,eveninpart.59
V. CONCLUSION
WeAFFIRMthesuperiorcourtsordersdismissingtheclaimagainstSaxbyandgrantingsummaryjudgmentfortheDepartmentandAhtna,VACATEtheattorneys
feesawards,andREMANDforfurtherproceedingsconsistentwiththisopinion.
59 Harris,631F.3dat973.
We do not suggest that a prevailing constitutional claimant seeking
attorneysfeesunderAS09.60.010(c)(1)necessarilybearsthesameburden.Cf. Fox,131S.Ct.at2215n.3(notingtestgoverningprevailingplaintiffs42U.S.C.1988attorneysfeesismoregenerousthanthatgoverningprevailingdefendantsfees). Butsee Oberlatz,329P.3dat227n.38(Wenotethatthe[plaintiffs]arenotentitledtoanattorney[s]feesawardforworkdonesolelyonclaimsagainstthe[defendant]thatdidnotconcernthe[plaintiffs]constitutionalrights....(citingAS09.60.010(c)(1))).
-21- 7036
-
7/25/2019 Manning v. State, Dept. of Fish & Game, Alaska (2015)
22/24
IntheSupremeCourtoftheStateofAlaska
KennethH.Manning, )) SupremeCourtNo.S-15121
Appellant, )
v. ) Order) PetitionforRehearing
StateofAlaska,etal., ))
Appellees. ) DateofOrder:8/28/15)
TrialCourtCase#3KN-11-00367CI
Before: Stowers,ChiefJustice,Fabe,Winfree,Maassen,andBolger,Justices
Both Kenneth H. Manning and the State of Alaska filed petitions for
rehearingafterourMay15,2015opinionissued.Allpartiesweregivenanopportunity
tobeheardonthepetitions.Afterconsideringthepetitionsandresponses,
ITISORDERED:
1. ManningspetitionforrehearingisDENIED.
2. TheStatespetitionforrehearingisGRANTED,andtheparagraph
beginning at the bottom of page 16 and carrying over to the bottom of page 17 is
modifiedasshowninthefollowingredlinedformat:
*****
ThesuperiorcourtdidnotindicatewhichcountsofManningscomplaintconcernedconstitutionalrights.Butbasedonourdenovoreview,weconcludethat19
-
7/25/2019 Manning v. State, Dept. of Fish & Game, Alaska (2015)
23/24
Manning v. State, et al.
SupremeCourtNo.S-15121Orderof8/28/15Page2
ofthe30countsconcernedprotectionofconstitutionalrights.
48
Fifteencountsclearlyconcernedprotection of constitutional rights, including the right to equal access to
subsistencehuntingaccessopportunities, 49therighttosustainableyieldmanagement,50
andtherighttoequalprotection.51
Othercountspresentcloserquestions.Threecounts
involvedclaimsthattheBoardfailedtoconsiderrelevantstatutoryfactorsandthatits
administrative process was flawed, leading to its promulgation of the allegedly
unconstitutionalcommunityharvestsystemandtheallegedeliminationofindividual
subsistencerights. Althoughtheseclaimscanbeconstruedtoassertastatutoryrightto
alawfuladministrativeprocess,theyaremorecorrectlyviewedasseekingtoprotectthe
constitutional common use right from improper infringement by agency action.
Likewise,ManningallegedinonecountthatunderAS16.05.258(b)requiringthat
game management provide a reasonable opportunity for subsistence uses the
regulationsexceededtheBoardsstatutoryauthority.Althoughthisfaciallyisastatutory
argument,AS16.05.258(b)functionstoprotectAlaskansconstitutionalrightstoequal
48 Specifically,counts1,2,3,4,8,9,10,11,12,14,15,16,18,21,23,26,27,28,and29concernedconstitutionalrights.
49 SeeAlaskaConst.art.VIII,3,17;State, Dept of Fish & Game v.Manning,161P.3d1215,1224(Alaska2007);McDowell v. State,785P.2d1,8-9(Alaska1989);see also Alaska Fish & Wildlife Conservation Fund v. State,347P.3d97,
102(Alaska2015)(Section15providesthatthereshallbe[n]oexclusiverightorspecialprivilegeoffishery. .. inthenaturalwatersof theState; thoughtheclauseaddressesonlyfishing,weapplyitsunderlyingprincipleswheninterpretingsections3and17.(alterationsinoriginal)(quotingAlaskaConst.art.VIII,15)).
50 AlaskaConst.artVIII,4.
51 SeeAlaskaConst.Id.art.I,1;id.art.VIII,3,4,15,17.
-
7/25/2019 Manning v. State, Dept. of Fish & Game, Alaska (2015)
24/24
Manning v. State, et al.
SupremeCourtNo.S-15121Orderof8/28/15Page3
accesstosubsistencehuntingaccessopportunities
52
evenabsentthisstatute,ManningwouldhaveaconstitutionalbasisforhisclaimagainsttheBoardforfailingtoprotect
subsistencehuntingaccessthisright.53 Butitisnotevidentthattheremaining11counts
concernedconstitutionalrights,soRule82attorneysfeesmightbeawardedforthose
claims.
52 See id. art.VIII,3,17;Manning,161P.3dat1224;McDowell,785P.2d
at8-9.53 Lake & Peninsula Borough v. Oberlatz,329P.3d214,227(Alaska2014)
(Itdoesnotmatterthatthedeprivations[oftheplaintiffsconstitutionalrights]alsoviolatedstatutesdesignedtoregulatethe[constitutional]right...orthatthestatutes
provide the rule of law for determining whether the constitutional right has beeninfringed.Theultimatequestioniswhetherthe[claimants]soughttoprotectthemselvesfromdeprivationoftheirconstitutionalrights....).
*****
3. OpinionNo.7008,issuedonMay15,2015,isWITHDRAWN,andOpinion7036isissuedonthisdateinitsplace,reflectingthechanges.
Enteredatthedirectionofthefullcourt.
ClerkoftheAppellateCourts
/S/MarilynMay
cc: SupremeCourtJusticesJudgeMoranTrialCourtAppealsClerkPublishers