Summary of a Recent
Judicial
Development in
Administrative Law
Formal Exhaustion Required for District
Court Jurisdiction
Eric PendergrassNational AgLaw Center Graduate Assistant
In Munsell v. United States Department of Agriculture, 435 F. Supp. 2d 149 (D.D.C. 2006), the United States District Court for the District of Columbia found it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over a meat processor's appeal of Food Safety Inspection Service (FSIS) actions because the processor's informal and amicable dialogue did not satisfy exhaustion requirements.
Following the discovery of E. coli 0157:H7 in the processor's product, the FSIS required the recall of 270 pounds of beef and the revision of the processor's Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point plan (HAACP). Id. at 152. Over a period of several months the processor attempted to comply with the FSIS request and went through approximately ten drafts of the HAACP plan. Id. During that time, the processor made several complaints to the local Congressman, a Senator, and the FSIS District Director, eventually alleging that the FSIS was acting in a retaliatory manner. Id. In an attempt to resolve its issues with FSIS and its employees, the processor filed its claim in the District Court seeking permission to proceed with discovery and a Bivens claim against the FSIS District Director in hopes of receiving monetary damages for a violation of its constitutional rights. Id.
The District Court held itlacked jurisdiction over the claims asserted by the processor because the informal and amicable nature of the complaints to the various government official did not effectively exhaust the available administrative remedies. Id. at 153. Before the processor could bring an action against the USDA, one of its departments, an officer, or an employee, it must exhaust all administrative appeal procedures established by the Secretary or required by law. Id. Furthermore, none of the exemptions to the exhaustion requirement applied because plaintiffs did not make a collateral attack on the administrative process, show that irreparable harm would occur, or show that exhaustion would be futile. Id. at 155. The constitutional claim also failed because it was intertwined with the statutory claim, and adequate administrative processes were in place to address the issue. Id. at 155-56. The District Court also held that it could only confer jurisdiction over the Bivens claim once the administrative remedies had been properly exhausted. Id. at 156.
The case was decided on June 13, 2006; this summary was posted Feb. 21, 2006.