## Facts

- Madison and Rosalie Locke owned ten unpatented placer mining claims for sand and gravel on federal land in Nevada, acquired in 1960 and 1966, and actively worked the claims for decades.
- The dispute arose under § 314 of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA), 43 U.S.C. § 1744, which required claimants to (1) make an initial BLM recording within a set grace period and (2) make annual filings “prior to December 31” each year thereafter.
- The Lockes timely completed the initial FLPMA recording on October 19, 1979.
- For the first annual filing due in 1980, the Lockes sought guidance from BLM; a BLM employee allegedly advised that filing could be made “on or before December 31, 1980.”
- The Lockes hand-delivered their annual proof of assessment to the BLM office on December 31, 1980; the local office accepted the documents.
- BLM regulations construed “prior to December 31” to require filing on or before December 30.
- The BLM Nevada State Office later declared the claims “abandoned and void” as untimely because the filing occurred on December 31.
- The Lockes pursued administrative appeals within the Department of the Interior without success.
- Loss of the claims had especially severe consequences because the interests could not be reestablished through relocation after voidance.

## Issues

1. Whether FLPMA § 314(c), which treats noncompliance as a conclusive abandonment of a mining claim, violates due process by extinguishing claims without regard to actual intent to abandon.
2. Whether automatic forfeiture of valuable, actively worked unpatented mining claims for a one-day-late annual filing constitutes an unconstitutional taking or otherwise violates Fifth Amendment property protections.
3. Whether a one-day-late annual filing, made in good faith and accepted by a local BLM office after the claimants sought agency guidance, can be treated as substantial compliance with FLPMA § 314(a) and implementing regulations.

## Decision

- The district court granted summary judgment for the Lockes.
- The court held FLPMA § 314(c) unconstitutional as applied, reasoning that its conclusive abandonment mechanism functioned as an impermissible irrebuttable presumption that disregarded actual intent and circumstances.
- The court further reasoned that extinguishing long-held, productive claims based solely on a minimal filing defect was arbitrary and inconsistent with due process and Fifth Amendment property protections.
- In the alternative, the court held the Lockes substantially complied with the annual filing requirement despite filing on December 31, given their good-faith efforts and the local BLM office’s acceptance of the documents.

## Legal Principles

- A statutory scheme that conclusively deems abandonment based solely on a missed administrative deadline may raise due process concerns when it terminates significant property interests without allowing consideration of actual intent or good-faith efforts to comply.
- Courts may recognize substantial compliance with regulatory filing requirements when the claimant acts in good faith, files in the correct office, and the agency accepts the filing, particularly where the deficiency is minimal.
- Extinguishment of long-held interests based on purely technical noncompliance can be analyzed under substantive due process and Fifth Amendment property protections when the sanction is severe and disproportionate to the default.

## Conclusion

The district court set aside BLM’s voidance of the Lockes’ mining claims, concluding that FLPMA’s conclusive abandonment provision could not constitutionally extinguish valuable, actively worked claims solely due to a one-day-late annual filing, and that the Lockes’ filing was, in any event, sufficient under a substantial-compliance theory.


Locke v. United States, 573 F. Supp. 472 (D. Nev. 1983)