People of State of Cal. ex rel. Younger v. Andrus

Decision Date31 October 1979
Docket NumberNo. 76-1431,76-1431
Citation608 F.2d 1247
Parties, 9 Envtl. L. Rep. 20,771 PEOPLE OF the STATE OF CALIFORNIA ex rel. Evelle J. YOUNGER, Attorney General and California Coastal Zone Conservation Commission, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Cecil D. ANDRUS, in his official capacity as Secretary of the Department of the Interior, et al., Defendants-Appellees.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit

Anita Ruud, Los Angeles, Cal., for plaintiff-appellant.

Jacques B. Gelin, Washington, D. C., for defendants-appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California.

Before CHAMBERS, ELY and WALLACE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

California appeals a district court judgment rejecting its challenges to certain aspects of the preparation, by the Department of the Interior (Interior), of a programmatic environmental impact statement (PEIS) pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 4321 Et seq., for accelerated oil and gas leasing on the outer continental shelf. Because we conclude that California lacks standing to raise these claims, we dismiss the appeal, vacate the judgment of the district court, and remand for consideration of dismissal of the complaint.

California originally sought to compel Interior to file a PEIS before proceeding with its accelerated leasing program for areas of the outer continental shelf off the Southern California coast. By the time of trial, Interior had issued a PEIS; California then claimed that the PEIS was both untimely and inadequate. The district court refused to enjoin Interior's impending leasing of certain offshore tracts (Lease Sale 35), and rendered judgment for Interior. California ex rel. Younger v. Morton, 404 F.Supp. 26 (C.D.Cal.1975). The lease sale thereafter took place; this appeal followed. We asked for supplemental briefing in part on the question of California's standing in this case.

Interior has brought to our attention section 23 of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act Amendments, 43 U.S.C.A. § 1349 (West Supp.1979), enacted in 1978, limiting review of certain of the actions of the Secretary of the Interior to an appropriate court of appeals. 1 Subsections 1349(c)(1) and (2) provide for such review of action of the Secretary "to approve a leasing program pursuant to section 1344 of this title" or "to approve, require modification of, or disapprove any exploration plan or any development and production plan under this subchapter." We conclude, however, that these subsections do not apply to this case. California alleged that the Secretary had violated NEPA but did not challenge Secretarial action with respect to a leasing program, exploration plan, or development and production plan itself. Thus, section 1349 contains nothing that would suggest that this case was not properly before the district court in the first instance, and it is now properly before us on appeal.

The question of California's standing presents a greater jurisdictional hurdle. Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, and " the presumption is that (we are) without jurisdiction unless the contrary affirmatively appears." Fifty Associates v. Prudential Insurance Co. of America, 446 F.2d 1187, 1190 (9th Cir. 1970). We require at least that the plaintiff "have alleged (a) a particularized injury (b) concretely and demonstrably resulting from defendants' action (c) which injury will be redressed by the remedies sought." Bowker v. Morton, 541 F.2d 1347, 1349 (9th Cir. 1976) (footnote omitted). Port of Astoria, Oregon v. Hodel, 595 F.2d 467, 474 & n. 6 (9th Cir. 1979).

We asked California to demonstrate its standing to raise the questions of PEIS timing and adequacy at issue here and to specify those portions of the record supporting its standing. But California has told us only that it relinquishes neither its claims regarding the timing and adequacy questions nor its...

To continue reading

Request your trial
52 cases
  • Safeco Ins. Co. of Am. v. Nelson, Case No. 20-cv-00211-MMA (AHG)
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of California
    • 24 Junio 2020
    ... ... See S.D. Cal. Case. No. 19cv1087-CAB-WVG. 468 F.Supp.3d 1296 ... 1989) (citing Cal. ex rel. Younger v. Andrus , 608 F.2d 1247, 1249 (9th ... Morongo Band of Mission Indians v. Cal. State Bd. of Equalization , 858 F.2d 1376, 1380 (9th ... ...
  • Poole v. Rourke
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of California
    • 23 Diciembre 1991
    ... ... Supp. 1549 Louis N. Hiken, San Francisco, Cal., for plaintiff ...         Joseph E ... professional who got along well with people and had the ability to inspire his subordinates ... Supp. 1554 ex rel. Younger v. Andrus, 608 F.2d 1247, 1249 (9th ... reaffirmed the Hensley standard in Texas State Teachers Ass'n v. Garland Indep. Sch. Dist., 489 ... ...
  • Int'l Union of Operating Eng'rs Local 370 v. Wasden
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Idaho
    • 24 Octubre 2016
    ... ... capacity as Attorney General for the State of Idaho, Defendant. Case No. 4:15CV00500EJLCWD ... California ex rel. Younger v. Andrus , 608 F.2d 1247, 1249 (9th ... ...
  • Whatsapp Inc. v. NSO Grp. Techs. Ltd.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of California
    • 16 Julio 2020
    ... ... Access and Fraud Act, 472 F.Supp.3d 659 Cal. Penal Code 502 ; (3) breach of contract; and ... 1981) ; and citing Cal. ex rel. Younger v. Andrus , 608 F.2d 1247, 1249 (9th ... 2015). "Federal courts ordinarily follow state law in determining the bounds of their ... 1,400 messages out of the 1.5 billion people in 180 countries who use the WhatsApp service ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT