Dine Citizens Against Ruining Our Environment v. United States Office of Surface Mining Reclamation & Enforcement

Tenth Circuit

Dine Citizens Against Ruining Our Environment v. United States Office of Surface Mining Reclamation & Enforcement

643 F. App'x 799

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit

DecidedMarch 30, 2016

Docket15-1126

StatusUnpublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 643 F. App'x 799 (Dine Citizens Against Ruining Our Environment v. United States Office of Surface Mining Reclamation & Enforcement) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Dine Citizens Against Ruining Our Environment v. United States Office of Surface Mining Reclamation & Enforcement, 643 F. App'x 799 (10th Cir. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER AND JUDGMENT **

PAUL J. KELLY, JR. Circuit Judge.

A recitation of the facts in this case is unnecessary, as the parties are familiar with them. Both parties agree we lack jurisdiction to hear this appeal, though for different reasons. The Intervenor Defendant-Appellant maintains that this case is constitutionally moot. The Plaintiffs-Ap-pellees argue instead that we cannot reach the mootness issue because the district court’s remand was not a final decision, see 28 U.S.C. § 1291, nor had the practical effect of an injunction, see 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1). We are not so constrained and may dismiss on any jurisdictional ground. Cf. Ruhrgas AG v. Marathon Oil Co., 526 U.S. 574, 578, 119 S.Ct. 1563, 143 L.Ed.2d 760 (1999); Boyce v. Ashcroft, 268 F.3d 953, 955 (10th Cir.2001) (“Although the court may have discretion to decide subject matter jurisdiction before reaching the issue of mootness, however, we find no reason to do so in this case. The matter is unquestionably moot. The court therefore vacates its judgment and remands to the district court with directions to vacate its judgment as moot.”).

Pending this appeal, the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, in accordance with the district court’s remand, issued a Revised Environmental Assessment and Finding of No New Significant Impact as well as re-approved the permit revision. Aplt. Notice of Supp. Auth. Because this case now lacks a live case or controversy, we lack subject matter jurisdiction. New Mexico ex rel. Richardson v. Bureau of Land Mgmt., 565 F.3d 683, 701 (10th Cir.2009). Therefore, we dismiss the appeal as constitutionally moot and vacate the district court’s March 2, 2015 opinion and order (Doc. 79), its April 6, 2015 remedies order (Doc. 83), and its Final Judgment (Doc. 86).

**

This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R.App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

ORDER AND JUDGMENT **

PAUL J. KELLY, JR. Circuit Judge.

A recitation of the facts in this case is unnecessary, as the parties are familiar with them. Both parties agree we lack jurisdiction to hear this appeal, though for different reasons. The Intervenor Defendant-Appellant maintains that this case is constitutionally moot. The Plaintiffs-Ap-pellees argue instead that we cannot reach the mootness issue because the district court’s remand was not a final decision, see 28 U.S.C. § 1291, nor had the practical effect of an injunction, see 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1). We are not so constrained and may dismiss on any jurisdictional ground. Cf. Ruhrgas AG v. Marathon Oil Co., 526 U.S. 574, 578, 119 S.Ct. 1563, 143 L.Ed.2d 760 (1999); Boyce v. Ashcroft, 268 F.3d 953, 955 (10th Cir.2001) (“Although the court may have discretion to decide subject matter jurisdiction before reaching the issue of mootness, however, we find no reason to do so in this case. The matter is unquestionably moot. The court therefore vacates its judgment and remands to the district court with directions to vacate its judgment as moot.”).

Pending this appeal, the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, in accordance with the district court’s remand, issued a Revised Environmental Assessment and Finding of No New Significant Impact as well as re-approved the permit revision. Aplt. Notice of Supp. Auth. Because this case now lacks a live case or controversy, we lack subject matter jurisdiction. New Mexico ex rel. Richardson v. Bureau of Land Mgmt., 565 F.3d 683, 701 (10th Cir.2009). Therefore, we dismiss the appeal as constitutionally moot and vacate the district court’s March 2, 2015 opinion and order (Doc. 79), its April 6, 2015 remedies order (Doc. 83), and its Final Judgment (Doc. 86).

**

This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R.App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

643 F. App'x 799, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dine-citizens-against-ruining-our-environment-v-united-states-office-of-ca10-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack