## Facts

- Olaf and spouse Hallstrom owned and operated a dairy farm adjacent to a sanitary landfill operated by Tillamook County, Oregon.
- The Hallstroms believed the landfill’s operations violated the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and sought to sue under RCRA’s citizen-suit provision, 42 U.S.C. § 6972(a)(1).
- RCRA bars commencement of a citizen suit until 60 days after the plaintiff gives notice of the alleged violation to (1) the EPA, (2) the State, and (3) the alleged violator. 42 U.S.C. § 6972(b).
- In April 1981, the Hallstroms provided written notice only to Tillamook County, not to the EPA or Oregon environmental agency.
- In 1982, the Hallstroms filed suit in federal district court.
- After the County moved for summary judgment based on deficient notice, the Hallstroms sent notice to the EPA and Oregon agency the next day.
- The district court treated the notice defect as curable, proceeded to trial, and found RCRA violations.
- The Ninth Circuit ordered dismissal, reasoning that noncompliance with the 60-day notice requirement required dismissal.

## Issues

1. Whether a RCRA citizen suit must be dismissed when the plaintiff fails to provide prefiling notice to the EPA and the State and fails to wait the statutory 60 days before filing.
2. Whether a court may cure noncompliance by permitting postfiling notice and staying the case until 60 days have elapsed.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment requiring dismissal.
- Compliance with § 6972(b)’s notice and 60-day delay is a mandatory condition precedent to filing a RCRA citizen-suit complaint.
- A postfiling notice and stay does not satisfy the statute’s prohibition on “commenc[ing]” an action before notice and the waiting period.
- Courts may not create equitable exceptions to the statutory prefiling requirements, even if dismissal occurs after substantial litigation.

## Legal Principles

- When a statute conditions a cause of action on prefiling procedures stated in prohibitory terms, courts must enforce those conditions as written.
- Under 42 U.S.C. § 6972(b), a RCRA citizen suit filed before providing notice to the EPA, the State, and the alleged violator, and before waiting 60 days, is barred and must be dismissed.
- The statutory notice-and-waiting period serves to give enforcement agencies an opportunity to act before private litigation proceeds, and this function is defeated by premature filing.

## Conclusion

The Court held that RCRA’s 60-day notice and delay requirement is a mandatory precondition to commencing a citizen suit, and a complaint filed without proper prefiling notice to the EPA and the State must be dismissed notwithstanding later notice or a proposed stay.


Hallstrom v. Tillamook County, 493 U.S. 20 (1989)