Case 4:19-cv-00092-DN Document 1 Filed 11/08/19 Page 1 of 8

FILED
'i.S DISTH!CT courn
Zill9 NOV - 8 F~1 3: 31~
Phillip K. Lyman - pro se
333 South Main Street
Blanding, UT 84511
Telephone: 435-459-2800
Facsimile: 435-678-3229
E-Mai I: phi ICZV, lymancpa.com

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH, CENTRAL DIVISION

Case: 4:19-cv-00092
PHILLIP K. LYMAN
Assigned To: Nuffer, David
Assign. Date : 11/8/2019
Plaintiff:
Description: Lyman v. US Bureau of
v. Land Management
UNITED ST ATES BUREAU OF LAND PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT WITH JURY
MANAGEMENT DEMAND

Defendant.

NOW COMES Phillip K. Lyman, acting pro se, and states his Complaint against

Defendant, United States Bureau of Land Management (the BLM) as follows:

INTRODUCTION

1. There is a road in the bottom of Recapture Canyon. BLM employees, Juan

Palma, Lance Porter, and Jason Moore, all swore under oath that the road was only an

administrative road, granted by the BLM to the San Juan Water Conservancy District, under

Title V ofFLPMA (Federal Lands Policy and Management Act). DANIEL W. WEBB, in his

ofiicial capacity as the Chief of the Branch of Geographic Sciences, Division of Lands and

Minerals, in the Utah Office of the BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, under penalty of

perjury, signed an affidavit stating that there was not a road in Recapture Canyon. He denied

{00816894-1}
 Case 4:19-cv-00092-DN Document 1 Filed 11/08/19 Page 2 of 8

the existence of a "road," and then stated that "it is clear that the trespass route and the route

depicted by the broken red line do not coincide." He had already stated that it was not

possible, from the several maps provided, to determine the exact placement of the road, at the

same time denying the existence of the road. He issued this affidavit in response to, then

defendant, Phil Lyman's motion for a new trial following the recusal of federal Judge, Robert

Shelby, and following Lyman's conviction of trespass and conspiracy to trespass.

2. Now, as plaintiff in this civil action, Lyman sues for a resolution to the most

basic question of his criminal case: Is the road on which Mr. Lyman traveled on May 10,

2014 a maintenance road granted under Title V by the BLM, or is it a val id and existing

county road?

3. Ed Roberson, current director of the BLM in Utah, met with Lyman, Attorneys

Peter Stirba, and John Howard, Brian Steed, Daniel W. Webb, Representative Michael Noel

and others to clarify the BLM's claim. It was clear in that meeting that Mr. Webb not only

did not know if there was a road in Recapture Canyon but, in the meeting, claimed to have no

expertise on Title V road vs RS 24 77 (Revised Statute 24 77) roads and that he was only a

cadastral administrator. Ed Roberson concluded that the only road in the bottom of Recapture

was the County Road and that the Title V for the pipeline clearly identified the access road as

the "existing County Road constructed under repealed RS 2477." When asked if he would

please simply make a public statement to that fact, he said that he was constrained by BLM

solicitors from doing so.

2
 Case 4:19-cv-00092-DN Document 1 Filed 11/08/19 Page 3 of 8

4. To leave the question unanswered is one thing, but to leave the question

unanswered in light of the criminal prosecution of a standing County Commissioner on, what

appear to be, false charges - especially when the question is so easily answered - is a

disservice to the community and to the judicial system. Why not answer the question?

5. BLM's records clearly identify the road as a county road separate from the

Title V pipeline right of way. See the ROW Grant, serial number U-42412, Appendix A,

Terms and Conditions of Right-of-Way, Section II (B) 2. Which states: "Existing access to

the right-of-way will be used and no new access will be constructed ... " Also under III. Site

Data, A. Lands Status, which states "Locations of the county roads in relation to the

proposed projects is not shown on the plats, since the roads were built per authority of

repealed R.S. 2477."

6. The Title V Pipeline right-of-way and the existing county road D53 l 4 may

indeed follow the same path in places, but FLPMA very clearly states under the title of

"EXISTING RIGHTS-OF-WAY" Sec. 509. [43 U.S.C. 1769] (a) "Nothing in this title shall

have the effect of terminating any right-of-way or right-of-use heretofore issued,

granted, or permitted." County Road D5314 is not adversely affected by a concurrent Title

V pipeline right-of-way grant. And in this case, it is the BLM record that provides the

greatest emphasis that the two are separate and distinct.

7. The unfortunate fallout from the attempt of a handful of people within the

BLM to cover the record on the road in Recapture has been significant. From the false

prosecution of Ken Brown and Dustin Felstead, to the tremendous amount of resources the

3
 Case 4:19-cv-00092-DN Document 1 Filed 11/08/19 Page 4 of 8

BLM has spent on fake damage reports, to the litigation costs, to the 2009 raids on the town

of Blanding carried out by embattled former BLM law enforcement officer Daniel P. Love;

the chain of events that were set off by the misrepresentations of the BLM related to this tiny

stretch of existing county road are incalculable. The truth is so blatant and well understood

locally, that all efforts to conceal it by the BLM and the courts is seen as a type of tyranny

which this court and our laws were instituted to deter, not promote.

8. Because of the false testimony in federal court by a number of BLM

employees, including Juan Palma, Jason Moore, Lance Porter, and Daniel W. Webb, Mr.

Lyman has suffered incalculable damage to his good name, his reputation, and in his

business and political relationships.

9. But for the choreographed fallacy promulgated by the BLM prior to the May

2014, event, to the U.S. Attorney's office, I do not believe that misdemeanor trespass and

conspiracy charges would have been filed against me and five other men out of the more than

500 people that participated in the event.

10. But for the false information provided to the U.S. Attorney's office I do not

believe the Court would have instructed the jury that it could not consider the legality of the

closure of the pertinent sections of Recapture Canyon because the Court, based on the fallacy

of a Title V road as sworn to by the BLM, had already determined that this closure was

lawful. (See Dkt. # 14 7 at 31 ). The Court made this determination earlier when it denied the

defendants' Motion to Dismiss, which argued the BLM had failed to follow its own

administrative procedures in closing the area.

4
 Case 4:19-cv-00092-DN Document 1 Filed 11/08/19 Page 5 of 8

11. But for the false testimony of Juan Plama, Lance Porter, and Jason Moore on

the stand related to the fictitious "pipeline maintenance road," I do not believe that I or any

of the other co-defendants in that case would have been convicted.

12. But for the sworn affidavit filed by Daniel W. Webb in response to my motion

for a new trial, I do not believe that my request would have been denied.

13. The BLM's collusion with media, the U.S. Attorney's office, special interest

groups, including The Old Broads for Wilderness, Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, the

Wilderness Society, to name just a few, was malicious, knowingly inaccurate, and calculated

as an effective form of character assassination against Mr. Lyman.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

14. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action purs~ant to 28

U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question). This Court also can provide relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2201

(declaratory judgement); 28 U.S.C. § 2202 (injunctive relief), and 5 U.S.C. §§ 553, 702 and

706. 14. Venue in the District of Utah is appropriate under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e) because it is

where a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claims occurred, the

county road and the Title V water pipeline at issue are situated in this district, and Plaintiff

resides in Utah. Specifically, the road and the pipeline are in San Juan County, within a mile

of Blanding Utah. Accordingly, the venue for trial should be in San Juan County.

LEGAL FRAMEWORK

Administrative Procedures Act

5
 Case 4:19-cv-00092-DN Document 1 Filed 11/08/19 Page 6 of 8

15. The AP A authorizes judicial review of agency actions and provides that comts

"shall ... hold unlawful and set aside agency action, findings, and conclusions found to be[]

arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law; ... in

excess of statutory jmisdiction, authority, or limitations, or short of statutory right; ... [or]

without observance of procedure required by law." 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A), (C), (D).

National Environmental Policy Act

16. NEPA has a primary objective to foster informed decisionmaking. The

Council on Environmental Quality ("CEQ") regulations implementing NEPA require

agencies to "integrate the NEPA process with other planning at the earliest possible time .. .,

to avoid delays later in the process, and to head off potential conflicts." Id. § 1501.2. Federal

agencies must comply with NEPA before there are "any irreversible and irretrievable

commitments of resources which would be· involved in the proposed action should it be

implemented." 42 U.S.C. § 4332(2)(C)(v); see also 40 C.F.R. §§ 1501.2, 1502.5(a).

17. NEPA requires that all federal agencies prepare a "detailed statement"

regarding all "major federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human

environment." 42 U.S.C. § 4332(2)(C). This statement, known as an environmental impact

statement ("EIS") must, among other things, rigorously explore and objectively evaluate all

reasonable alternatives. C.F.R. §§ 1502.14, 1502.16. 29.

18. These actions are required prior to taking an action such as closing a road,

and, in the case of an existing county road, must be done in full coordination with local and

6
 Case 4:19-cv-00092-DN Document 1 Filed 11/08/19 Page 7 of 8

state interest holders. This did not occur with the BLM's fallacious closure of County Road

D5314.

19. Utah State law prohibits the closing of a road by parties, including federal

agencies, without following due process, including federal due process.

20. Under the Code of Federal Regulations 43 (C.F.R.) Section 83412, BLM has

the authority to perform a temporary emergency closure of .an area, but not a closure of a

county road. The BLM used this section to close an area in Recapture Canyon which had

been open to all motorized travel including cross country off-road travel. Their order did not

close the road, not could it have closed the county road under this provision, yet BLM

assumed the erroneous position that they had in fact closed county road D5314.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court enter judgment in Plaintiff's favor and

against Defendants and provide the following relief:

21. Provide declaratory relief stating that County Road D5314 is not a Title V

road granted for maintenance as erroneously claimed by the Bureau of Land Management

(BLM), but is, as the BLM identified on their pipeline ROW grant, a county road constructed

under R.S. 2477.

22. Provide injunctive relief that the BLM cease and desist from stating that

County Road D5314 is a Title V road, or that it was illegally constructed, etc.

7
 Case 4:19-cv-00092-DN Document 1 Filed 11/08/19 Page 8 of 8

23. Award Plaintiff the costs he has incurred in pursuing this action, including

attorneys' fees, as authorized by the Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d), and

other applicable provisions; and; Provide such other compensatory relief as the Jury deems

just and proper.

24. That judgment be entered against the BLM for punitive damages in an amount

not less than Ten Million Dollars ($10,000,000).

25. That all costs of this action be taxed to the BLM; and

26. That the Court grant all such other and further relief that the Court deems just

and proper, including equitable relief.

Respectfully submitted this 7th day of November 2019.

333 South M in St et
Blanding, UT 8 11
Email - phll@lymancpa.com
Tel: 435-459-2800
Fax:435-678-3229