Jenkins v. Babbitt ( 2000 )

F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
DEC 4 2000
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
LYNN A. JENKINS,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v. No. 00-4057
(D.C. No. 99-CV-49)
BRUCE BABBITT, Secretary (D. Utah)
United States Department of Interior,
Defendant-Appellee.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before TACHA , EBEL , and BRISCOE , Circuit Judges.
Plaintiff Lynn Jenkins appeals the district court’s entry of summary
judgment against him and dismissal of his action for lack of standing. Jenkins
brought suit challenging the actions of Bruce Babbitt, the Secretary of the
Interior, in a related condemnation action and seeking various sorts of declaratory
relief with respect to the property at issue in that condemnation action. The
district court determined that Jenkins did not have standing to pursue his claims
*
This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the
doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court
generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order
and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.
because the court in the condemnation action had ruled that Jenkins had no
interest in the property at issue. The district court concluded that the earlier
ruling was res judicata in the current action. The district court further concluded
that without an interest in the subject property, Jenkins had no standing to assert
any of his current claims. We exercise jurisdiction over this appeal pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 1291. 1
We review the district court’s conclusions of law as to the applicability
of res judicata de novo. Frandsen v. Westinghouse Corp. , 46 F.3d 975, 977
(10th Cir. 1995). We also review de novo the district court’s determination as to
standing. Loving v. Boren , 133 F.3d 771, 772 (10th Cir. 1998). Based upon our
review of the record, the parties’ briefs, and the pertinent law, we conclude that
the district court properly determined that Jenkins had no standing to assert his
present claims against Secretary Babbitt. Because we conclude that Jenkins had
no standing to bring the current action, we need not address Jenkins’ contention
that the Office of the Solicitor General, rather than the United States Attorney’s
Office, should have represented Secretary Babbitt in this action.
1
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of
this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is
therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.
-2-
We AFFIRM the judgment of the district court for substantially the reasons
stated in its oral ruling of February 9, 2000. The mandate shall issue forthwith.
Entered for the Court
David M. Ebel
Circuit Judge
-3-