United States v. Springer, 71-2309.
Citation | 478 F.2d 43 |
Decision Date | 05 March 1973 |
Docket Number | No. 71-2309.,71-2309. |
Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Curtis Howe SPRINGER (a/k/a Curtis H. Springer) and Helen Springer, husband and wife, et al., Defendants-Appellants. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
George W. Nilsson (argued), Monta W. Shirley, Los Angeles, Cal., for defendants-appellants.
Carl J. Strass, Atty. (argued), Edmund B. Clark, Atty., Kent Frizzell, Asst. Atty. Gen., Washington, D. C., Ernestine Tolan, Asst. U. S. Atty., William D. Keller, U. S. Atty., Los Angeles, Cal., for plaintiff-appellee.
Before HAMLEY and WRIGHT, Circuit Judges, and POWELL,* District Judge.
The United States brought this action against Curtis Howe Springer and others for ejectment, an injunction, and damages in connection with defendants' use of their unpatented mining claims on real property owned by the United States in San Bernardino County, California.
The United States moved for a partial summary judgment permanently enjoining defendants from using the real property in question for any purpose other than prospecting, mining or processing of minerals, and uses reasonably incident thereto. The district court held that while the Government was not entitled to a permanent injunction at that stage of the proceedings, it "may well be entitled to an injunction pendente lite" enjoining defendants from using the property for non-mining and non-prospecting purposes. United States v. Springer, 321 F.Supp. 625, 627 (C.D.Cal.1970).
The court noted in its opinion that, for many years, defendants have been using the property for the purpose of operating a resort hotel with related facilities, for the manufacture of "health" foods, and for such other purposes as the preparation of printed materials and tape recordings for radio broadcasts. The court also observed that defendants were maintaining on the property "four guestroom buildings aggregating 59 units, a dining room with kitchen facilities, an administration building, a chapel-meeting room, indoor and outdoor mineral baths, a number of out buildings, electrical facilities and various other structures and facilities." 321 F.Supp., at 626.
The district court entered the partial summary judgment on December 18, 1970. In reliance thereon the Government, on December 29, 1970, filed a motion for an injunction pendente lite. Such an injunction was entered on June 18, 1971. It enjoins defendants pending disposition of the action or further order of the court from engaging in ten classified activities, as set out in the margin.1 Defendants have appealed from the entry of this injunction pendente lite.
An injunction pendente lite is, in essence, a preliminary injunction. See Rule 65, Fed.R.Civ.P. "Ordinarily, the grant or denial of a preliminary injunction is a matter within the discretion of the district court, and it will not be reversed absent an abuse of that discretion." Douglas v. Beneficial Finance Co. of Anchorage, 469 F.2d 453 (9th Cir.1972).
Defendants present a variety of arguments why the district court erred in entering the injunction pendente lite. Insofar as they pertain to the limited issues relevant here as to what use one who has unpatented mining claims may make of the land, and whether these claimants are making impermissible use of such lands, we think these arguments are fully answered in the opinion of the district court. We adopt the district court's reasoning as our own, reject defendants' arguments, and hold that the district court did not abuse its discretion.
We have set out above only the tip of the iceberg with regard to the proceedings which have been had, or are in progress, concerning this controversy.2 It is to be expected that defendants will, as they have in the past, seek stays from any available court or judge in an effort to keep their operations on these Government lands in progress as long as possible. For the assistance of any court or judge which is hereafter asked to grant such a stay, we here set out in the margin the long history of such efforts in this court to date.3
The stay entered on October 16, 1972, is vacated. The order granting an injunction pendente lite is affirmed.
The petition for a panel rehearing is denied.
Pursuant to Rule 35(b), Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, appellant's suggestion for a rehearing in banc was transmitted to the judges of the court who are in regular active service. One such judge requested a vote on the suggestion, but only this judge voted for an in banc rehearing. The suggestion for a rehearing in banc has therefore been rejected.
CHAMBERS, Circuit Judge .
Springer is operating some kind of a health spa on mining claims on government land.
This involves several buildings built on the claims and the use of some spring water claimed to contain health-giving minerals. It is not contended the business is an unlawful one.
What the panel has done is to approve the granting of a temporary injunction where no final judgment or decree has been entered. No threatened irreparable injury was ever proved. Certainly by final judgment a landowner is entitled to have one adjudged to be on the land improperly and is entitled to have the defendant put off by mandatory injunction, but not now.
What we do is to approve the practice of giving the government "two bites at the cherry,"—one is on preliminary injunction and the second is on trial on the merits.
There was no balance of convenience here in favor of government. Any damage done was when the establishment was erected. It is not suggested that any real damage has been done since then.
Although the case is not mentioned, the panel has quietly overruled such cases as McCarthy v. Bunker Hill and Sullivan Mining and Concentrating Company, 164 F. 927 (9th Cir. 1908), a case that has stood for 65 years. There, mines were polluting the Coeur d'Alene River. On a temporary injunction request, this court said "no." Comparatively the damage in the McCarthy case was horrendous. Here, no present damage is shown.
It is very troublesome that the panel opinion refers to the fact that Springer has been convicted of a number of offenses. I thought the day was long past when we forfeited a man's legal rights because he had been previously convicted of a crime or crimes.
* The Honorable Charles L. Powell, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Washington, sitting by designation.
1 Defendants are enjoined, pending disposition of the action or further order of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
United States v. Langley
...claimant could not use the claim for any purposes other than mining purposes and uses reasonably incident to mining...."), aff'd, 478 F.2d 43 (9th Cir. 1973).8 Such an interpretation is particularly appropriate in the context of mining on national forest lands. To permit uses on national fo......
-
United States v. Springer
...625 (C.D.Cal.1970), followed by issuance of a preliminary injunction, and in an opinion of this Court affirming, United States v. Springer, 478 F.2d 43 (9th Cir. 1972). The facts as related in those opinions have not been materially controverted or changed in subsequent The prime thrust of ......
-
US v. HERBERT BRYANT, INC.
...State of Delaware, 503 F.2d 764 (3d Cir.1974); United States v. Springer, 321 F.Supp. 625 (C.D.Calif.1974), aff'd per curiam, 478 F.2d 43 (9th Cir. 1972); United States v. Osterlund, 505 F.Supp. 165 If the United States' claim to Parcels A, B-1 and D is not a valid claim, then the question ......
-
Commercial Iron & Metal Co. v. Bache & Co., Inc.
... ... Louis, Jr., Defendants-Appellees ... No. 72-1383 ... United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit ... Argued and Submitted March 27, ... ...
-
Future prospects for mining and public land management: the federal 'retention-disposal' policy enters the twenty-first century.
...with defendant's extensive nonmining development of the surface does not estop enforcement of rules against such development), aff'd, 478 F.2d 43 (9th Cir. 1972); cf. United States v. Wharton, 514 F.2d 406, 412-13 (9th Cir. 1975) (applying equitable estoppel against BLM's claim of title bec......