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

[email protected].

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]


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


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


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


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


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


7/24

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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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.


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

manning v. state, dept. of fish & game, alaska (2015)

Documents