Laserfiche WebLink
Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, et al., 620 F.3d 1227, 1235 (10th Cir. 2010). In <br />Southern Utah, the plaintiff challenged a decision by the OSM that a mining plan had not <br />been modified such that it would require a new OSM recommendation to the Secretary. Id. <br />at 1232. The Court held that, because the OSM's recommendation was critical to the <br />decision making process and the decision of the OSM resulted in the Secretary making an <br />uninformed decision, the OSM decision could be challenged under the APA. Id. at 1235. <br />8. Here, the Plaintiffs' allegations are that the procedure by which the decision to approve the <br />permit was made did not meet due process requirements. Those allegations include acts of <br />DRMS staff which limited the ability of objectors to attend and present evidence at the <br />November 17 hearing. Complaint 120. While the DRMS proposed decision is not binding <br />on the Board, the DRMS has an integral role the decision making process because it has the <br />responsibility of ensuring that sufficient information is before the Board at the formal <br />hearing so that it can make an informed decision. Therefore, even though the DRMS <br />proposed decision is not a final agency action subject to review, the DRMS is a proper <br />defendant in this appeal action because of its critical participation in the Board's decision <br />making process. <br />9. C.R.S. § 34 -33 -119 provides the process by which permit application decisions are made <br />under CSCMRA. Subsection (5) provides that, in the event a hearing is held to review the <br />division's proposed decision, the hearing shall be conducted pursuant to C.R.S. § 24 -4- <br />105. Subsection (9) provides the right to appeal a decision of the board in accordance with <br />G.R.S. § 34 -33 -128. C.R.S. § 34 -33 -128 in turn provides that any proceeding required to be <br />conducted pursuant to article 4 of title 24, C.R.S., shall be subject to judicial review. <br />10. CSCMRA does not contain a provision setting out who the proper parties are to an action <br />for judicial review. Therefore, the Administrative Procedures Act ( "APA "), C.R.S. §§ 24- <br />4 -101 et seq., is controlling. Under the APA, "[e]very party to an agency action in a <br />proceeding under section 24 -4 -105 not appearing as plaintiff in such action for judicial <br />review shall be made a defendant." C.R.S. § 24- 4- 106(4). <br />11. The November 17 hearing was a proceeding under C.R.S. § 24 -4 -105. Defendant DRMS <br />admits in its motion that it was a parry to the November 17 hearing. Defendant DRMS's <br />Motion to Dismiss Itself at 17. Therefore, since DRMS is not a plaintiff in this action, <br />C.RS. § 24- 4- 106(4) requires that it be joined as a Defendant. <br />12. C.R.C.P. 8 requires only a short and plain statement showing that the pleader is entitled to <br />relief. C.R.C.P. Rule 8(a). Plaintiffs alleged in their Complaint that DRMS personnel <br />participated in acts which violated Plaintiffs' due process rights. Complaint 120. For the <br />purpose of deciding this Motion, those allegations must be accepted as true. O'Neill at <br />1123. DRMS states in its Motion that the listed conduct only implicates the Board. <br />However, the listed conduct includes acts taken by DRMS staff which limited the <br />3 <br />