United States v. Springer, No. 73-1876.

• Court: United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)
• Writing for the Court: TRASK and GOODWIN, Circuit , and THOMPSON
• Citation: 491 F.2d 239
• Parties: UNITED STATES of America, and United States District Court for the Central District of California, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. Curtis Howe SPRINGER, aka Curtis H. Springer, et al., Defendants-Appellants.
• Docket Number: No. 73-1876.
• Decision Date: 26 February 1974

491 F.2d 239 (1974)

UNITED STATES of America, and United States District Court for the Central District of California, Plaintiffs-Appellees,
v.
Curtis Howe SPRINGER, aka Curtis H. Springer, et al., Defendants-Appellants.

No. 73-1876.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

January 17, 1974.

Rehearing Denied February 26, 1974.

491 F.2d 240

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

491 F.2d 241

George W. Nilsson, Los Angeles, Cal. (argued), for defendants-appellants

William D. Keller, U. S. Atty., Los Angeles, Cal., Wallace H. Johnson, Asst. U. S. Atty., Gen., Carl Strass (argued), Edmund B. Clark, U. S. Dept. of Justice, Washington, D. C., for plaintiffs-appellees.

Before TRASK and GOODWIN, Circuit Judges, and THOMPSON,^* District Judge.

BRUCE R. THOMPSON, District Judge:

The early history of this case is related in an opinion of the District Court granting a partial summary judgment, United States v. Springer, 321 F.Supp. 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 proceedings.

The prime thrust of the original complaint was that defendants be completely ejected from the premises in question. The effect of the preliminary injunction issued June 18, 1971, which was the subject of the earlier appeal, was to prohibit any use or occupation of the mining claims by defendants other than for legitimate mining purposes. The instant appeal is from a summary judgment entered March 6, 1973, which, in substance, decrees that defendants have no right, title or interest in the public lands in question and orders their immediate ejectment therefrom.

The summary judgment was entered upon review of an administrative record produced in the Department of Interior after the United States had initiated proceedings in the Department contesting the validity of the ten mining claims (nine placer claims and one lode claim) relied upon by defendants to support their right to possession of several hundred acres of public domain.¹

The final decision of the Interior Board of Land Appeals was made on November 14, 1972. Thereafter, the District Court permitted the United States to file a supplemental complaint in the pending ejectment action which alleged the invalidity of the mining claims based upon the final agency action by the Interior Board of Land Appeals. The entire administrative record was lodged with the Court and the action became one to review final agency action under the Administrative Procedure Act. The District Court sustained the administrative decision declaring the invalidity of defendants' mining claim locations.

On this appeal, defendants make several contentions, none of which have merit.

The defendants contend that the United States has no power under the mining laws to initiate a contest of the validity of unpatented mining locations. This is not the law. United States v. Coleman, 390 U.S. 599, 88 S.Ct. 1327, 20 L.Ed.2d 170 (1968); Best v. Humboldt Placer Mining Co., 371 U.S. 334, 83 S. Ct. 379, 9 L.Ed.2d 350 (1963); Cameron v. United States, 252 U.S. 450, 40 S.Ct. 410, 64 L.Ed. 659 (1920).

The defendant assigns as error the action of the District Court permitting the filing of a supplemental complaint and also the whole procedure of holding the principal action in abeyance pending an administrative determination of the validity of the mining claims by the Department of the Interior. This,

491 F.2d 242

however, is the very procedure which was approved by the Supreme Court in Best v. Humboldt Placer Mining Co., 371 U.S. 334, 83 S.Ct. 379, 9 L.Ed.2d 350 (1963). In the ejectment action as originally commenced, defendants' right to possession depended upon the validity of the mining claims. After final agency action was obtained, a supplemental pleading "setting forth transactions or occurrences or events which have happened since the date of the pleading sought to be supplemented" is plainly authorized by the rules. Rule 15(d), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

Defendants further contend that the Interior Board of Land Appeals and the District Court erred in holding that after the Government has presented a prima...