People of State of Cal. ex rel. Younger v. Andrus, No. 76-1431
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit) |
| Writing for the Court | Before CHAMBERS, ELY and WALLACE; PER CURIAM |
| Citation | 608 F.2d 1247 |
| Decision Date | 31 October 1979 |
| Docket Number | No. 76-1431 |
| 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. |
Page 1247
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.
Ninth Circuit.
Rehearing Denied Dec. 19, 1979.
Page 1248
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)
Page 1249
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...To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Whatsapp Inc. v. NSO Grp. Techs. Ltd., Case No. 19-cv-07123-PJH
...2003) (quoting Gen. Atomic Co. v. United Nuclear Corp., 655 F.2d 968, 969 (9th Cir. 1981) ; and citing Cal. ex rel. Younger v. Andrus, 608 F.2d 1247, 1249 (9th Cir. 1979) ). A jurisdictional challenge may be facial or factual. Safe Air for Everyone v. Meyer, 373 F.3d 1035, 1039 (9th Cir. 20......
-
Safeco Ins. Co. of Am. v. Nelson, Case No. 20-cv-00211-MMA (AHG)
...Inc. v. Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation , 873 F.2d 1221, 1225 (9th Cir. 1989) (citing Cal. ex rel. Younger v. Andrus , 608 F.2d 1247, 1249 (9th Cir. 1979) ). Subject matter jurisdiction must exist when the action is commenced. Morongo Band of Mission Indians v. Cal. State Bd......
-
Poole v. Rourke, Civ. No. S-87-1036 MLS.
...is presumed to lack jurisdiction "unless the contrary affirmatively appears." California 779 F. Supp. 1554 ex rel. Younger v. Andrus, 608 F.2d 1247, 1249 (9th In light of these limits, the first question the court must address in all litigation is whether subject matter jurisdiction exists.......
-
Int'l Union of Operating Eng'rs Local 370 v. Wasden, Case No. 4:15–CV–00500–EJL–CWD
...A federal court is presumed to lack jurisdiction unless the contrary affirmatively appears. California ex rel. Younger v. Andrus , 608 F.2d 1247, 1249 (9th Cir. 1979). The plaintiff bears the burden of establishing the existence of subject matter jurisdiction. Thornhill Pu. Co., Inc. v. Gen......
-
Whatsapp Inc. v. NSO Grp. Techs. Ltd., Case No. 19-cv-07123-PJH
...2003) (quoting Gen. Atomic Co. v. United Nuclear Corp., 655 F.2d 968, 969 (9th Cir. 1981) ; and citing Cal. ex rel. Younger v. Andrus, 608 F.2d 1247, 1249 (9th Cir. 1979) ). A jurisdictional challenge may be facial or factual. Safe Air for Everyone v. Meyer, 373 F.3d 1035, 1039 (9th Cir. 20......
-
Safeco Ins. Co. of Am. v. Nelson, Case No. 20-cv-00211-MMA (AHG)
...Inc. v. Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation , 873 F.2d 1221, 1225 (9th Cir. 1989) (citing Cal. ex rel. Younger v. Andrus , 608 F.2d 1247, 1249 (9th Cir. 1979) ). Subject matter jurisdiction must exist when the action is commenced. Morongo Band of Mission Indians v. Cal. State Bd......
-
Poole v. Rourke, Civ. No. S-87-1036 MLS.
...is presumed to lack jurisdiction "unless the contrary affirmatively appears." California 779 F. Supp. 1554 ex rel. Younger v. Andrus, 608 F.2d 1247, 1249 (9th In light of these limits, the first question the court must address in all litigation is whether subject matter jurisdiction exists.......
-
Int'l Union of Operating Eng'rs Local 370 v. Wasden, Case No. 4:15–CV–00500–EJL–CWD
...A federal court is presumed to lack jurisdiction unless the contrary affirmatively appears. California ex rel. Younger v. Andrus , 608 F.2d 1247, 1249 (9th Cir. 1979). The plaintiff bears the burden of establishing the existence of subject matter jurisdiction. Thornhill Pu. Co., Inc. v. Gen......