Laserfiche WebLink
rescheduling the hearing on Basin Resources contest of the NOV. A copy of the Board's order is <br />attached as Exhibit A. <br />It is this order that the Plaintiffs seek to contest, and from which they seek temporary <br />relief. This order, however, is interlocutory, and is not the final action of the Board in this <br />matter. "If the order entered in a cause does not put an end to the action, but leaves something <br />further to be done before the rights of the parties are determined, it is interlocutory, and not <br />final." Morron v. McDaniel, 254 P.2d 862, 864 (Colo. 1953); accord Janssen v. Denver Career <br />Services Board, 998 P.2d 9, 12 (Colo. App. 1999) ("final decision" marks consummation of <br />agency decision-making process; it is not tentative or interlocutory). Courts are not to interfere <br />with agency proceedings until the aeencv has taken final action. TRS Leasine v. District Court. <br />728 P.2d 729, 731 (Colo. 1986). The requirement of final agency action is jurisdictional: a <br />district court does not have jurisdiction to restrain an administrative agency from performing its <br />statutory duties. Id. ~ <br />The Application presents an issue indistinguishable from that considered by the Colorado <br />Supreme Court in Colorado Health Facilities Review Council v. District Court, 689 P.2d 617 <br />(Colo. 1984) (Colorado Health).' in Colorado Health, a petitioner to an administrative agency <br />sought review of an order by a reviewing boazd remanding a decision to a hearing officer for <br />The Plaintiffs have also failed to exhaust their administrative remedies. While related to the <br />notion of finality, the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies is conceptually distinct. <br />Janssen, 99S P.2d at 12. Just as the lack of a final agency action precludes judicial review, so too <br />"[i]f the parties fail to satisfy the exhaustion requirement, a court is without subject matter <br />jurisdiction to hear the action." ]d. at 11. <br />- The standards forjudicial review found in the Colorado Administrative Procedure Act apply <br />to judicial review of the actions of [he Mined Land Reclamation Board. Chenev v. Mined Land <br />Reclamation Board, 826 P.2d 367, 368 (Colo. App. 1991). <br />- ~- <br />