CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT |
POLYWEAVE PACKAGING, INC., a Delaware
corporation,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
PETER PAUL MONTGOMERY BUTTIGIEG, Secretary,
United States Department of Transportation, in his
official capacity,
Defendant-Appellee. |
No. 21-5929 |
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Kentucky at Owensboro.
No. 4:21-cv-00054—Joseph H. McKinley, Jr., District Judge.
Argued: May 5, 2022
Decided and Filed: October 20, 2022
Before: ROGERS, KETHLEDGE, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.
_________________________
OPINION
_________________________
ROGERS, Circuit Judge. When Congress places judicial review of certain types of
agency action in the court of appeals rather than the district court, this jurisdictional allocation
cannot be circumvented by suing in the district court to challenge agency procedures used (or
omitted) in the proceedings leading to such actions, at least where court-of-appeals jurisdiction
provides a fully effective forum to address such arguments. This venerable principle without
more supports the district court’s dismissal of plaintiff’s claims in this case.
Plaintiff Polyweave Packaging, Inc. makes packaging for the safe transportation of
hazardous materials. Following an investigation of Polyweave, the Pipeline and Hazardous
Materials Safety Administration—an operating administration within the Department of
Transportation—issued an order finding that Polyweave had violated federal regulations and
assessed a civil penalty of $14,460. In addition to seeking judicial review of that civil-penalty
order in the court of appeals, Polyweave brought this action in district court seeking injunctive
and declaratory relief to prevent the Department of Transportation from rescinding a regulation
known as Subpart D. Subpart D sets forth several requirements for enforcement actions taken by
DOT operating administrations, such as the enforcement proceeding against Polyweave.
Polyweave argues that the DOT improperly rescinded Subpart D and alleges that Polyweave has
incurred procedural injury in the underlying enforcement proceeding as a result. The district
court however lacked jurisdiction over Polyweave’s claims because the court of appeals’
exclusive jurisdiction over judicial review of the underlying agency order bars Polyweave from
attempting to litigate the rescission of Subpart D in the district court. |
|