Citizens for Honesty v. County of San Diego
| Decision Date | 25 February 2005 |
| Docket Number | No. 03-55830.,03-55830. |
| Citation | 399 F.3d 1067 |
| Parties | CITIZENS FOR HONESTY AND INTEGRITY IN REGIONAL PLANNING, Plaintiff, and Karl J. Turecek, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, Defendant-Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
Scott Zarin, San Francisco, CA, for the plaintiff-appellant.
C. Ellen Pilsecker, Senior Deputy, County of San Diego, San Diego, CA, for defendant-appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California; Rudi M. Brewster, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. CV-02-01855-RMB.
Before: GOODWIN, MAGILL,* and RYMER, Circuit Judges.
The appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction. The district court record reveals that there was no case or controversy between Karl A. Turecek ("Turecek") and the County of San Diego ("the County") when the pleadings were before the district court. The judgment of the district court, styled Citizens for Honesty and Integrity in Regional Planning v. County of San Diego and reported at 258 F.Supp.2d 1132 (S.D.Cal.2003), must be vacated because no basis for federal jurisdiction existed.
Turecek seeks a declaratory judgment that the definition of "wetlands" employed by the local county Resource Protection Ordinance ("RPO") is preempted by the federal definition of "wetlands" contained in the "Swampbuster" section of the Food Security Act. RPO Art. II(16); 16 U.S.C. § 3801(a)(18). The district court did not have jurisdiction to consider the preemption question. First, there is no evidence in the record that the County's decision to deny Turecek's land use permit application was grounded in its refusal to follow the narrower federal definition of wetlands rather than the broader local definition of wetlands. Second, there is no threat of prosecution, imminent or otherwise, or evidence that the County intends to employ the local definition against Turecek. See generally Md. Cas. Co. v. Pac. Coal & Oil Co., 312 U.S. 270, 273, 61 S.Ct. 510, 85 L.Ed. 826 (1941). Mere possibility of future local regulatory action challenged as unconstitutional or in conflict with federal law is not sufficient for declaratory judgment jurisdiction. Public Serv. Comm'n of Utah v. Wycoff Co., Inc., 344 U.S. 237, 73 S.Ct. 236, 97 L.Ed. 291 (1952); Rincon Band of Mission Indians v. San Diego County, 495 F.2d 1 (9th Cir.1974); Alton Box Bd. Co. v. Esprit de Corp., 682 F.2d 1267 (9th Cir.1982). Third, there is nothing to suggest that...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Del Real, LLC v. Harris
...& Integrity in Reg'l Planning v. Cnty. of San Diego, 258 F.Supp.2d 1132, 1135 (S.D.Cal.2003) appeal dismissed and remanded, 399 F.3d 1067 (9th Cir.2005); see also Comm. of Dental Amalgam Mfrs. & Distributors v. Stratton, 92 F.3d 807, 810 (9th Cir.1996).IV. DISCUSSIONA. Justiciability Defens......
-
Aqua Water Supply Corp. v. City of Elgin
...& Integrity in Reg'l Planning v. Cnty. of San Diego, 258 F.Supp.2d 1132, 1135 (S.D. Cal. 2003), appeal dismissed and remanded, 399 F.3d 1067 (9th Cir. 2005). TCEQ argues that because the allegedly preempting federal statute—7 U.S.C. § 1926(b)—was enacted by Congress pursuant to the Spending......
-
Pierce v. Ducey
..."conflict with federal law is not sufficient for declaratory judgment jurisdiction." Citizens for Honesty & Integrity in Reg'l Planning. v. County of San Diego , 399 F.3d 1067, 1068 (9th Cir. 2005).C.The governor argues that the district court also lacked subject matter jurisdiction under 2......