American Independence Mines & Minerals Co. v. United States Department of Agriculture , 494 F. App'x 724 ( 2012 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION AUG 17 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
AMERICAN INDEPENDENCE MINES No. 11-35123
AND MINERALS CO., an Idaho joint
venture composed of Ivy Minerals, Inc., an D.C. No. 1:09-cv-00433-EJL
Idaho corporation, and Walker Mining
Company, an Idaho corporation and IVY
MINERALS, INC., an Idaho corporation, MEMORANDUM *
Plaintiffs - Appellants,
and
VALLEY COUNTY,
Intervenor-Plaintiff,
v.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
AGRICULTURE, an agency of the United
States; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Idaho
Edward J. Lodge, District Judge, Presiding
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Argued and Submitted July 10, 2012
Portland, Oregon
Before: GOODWIN, PREGERSON, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Plaintiff-Appellant, American Independence Mines and Minerals Co.
(“American Mines”), appeals the dismissal of its complaint seeking judicial review
of a travel management plan governing use of the roads in the Payette National Forest.
American Mines filed suit against the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the Secretary
of Agriculture Tom Vilsack, the U.S. Forest Service, and several local employees of
the U.S. Forest Service (collectively, the “Federal Defendants”) for alleged NEPA
violations stemming from the issuance of new road use regulations in the Payette
Forest.
The complaint alleged that the final environmental impact statement underlying
the travel management plan was based on facts that the U.S. Forest Service knew were
inaccurate. The district court dismissed the complaint after concluding that American
Mines’ interest in the Payette National Forest was purely economic, and therefore it
lacked prudential standing under NEPA. American Mines subsequently filed a motion
to alter or amend the judgment under Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, which was untimely by one day. The Federal Defendants opposed the
Rule 59(e) motion but did not object on timeliness grounds. The district court granted
2
the Rule 59(e) motion, in part, but left intact its holding regarding American Mines’
lack of standing.
The Federal Defendants argue that we do not have jurisdiction over this appeal
because the time to file a Rule 59(e) motion cannot be extended by the court. The
Supreme Court has distinguished between time constraints mandated by statute, i.e.,
jurisdictional rules that pertain to the court’s ability to hear the case, and judicially-
imposed time restraints, i.e., claim-processing rules that can be forfeited if not raised
in a timely fashion. See Kontrick v. Ryan, 540 U.S. 443, 452–56 (2004); Eberhardt
v. United States, 546 U.S. 12, 15–19 (2005). We have held that Rule 6(b), the rule
governing time limits for Rule 59(e) motions, is a claim-processing rule subject to
forfeiture. See Art Attacks Ink, LLC v. MGA Entm't Inc., 581 F.3d 1138, 1143 (9th
Cir. 2009). Because the Federal Defendants failed to raise untimeliness until after the
district court had considered the merits of the Rule 59(e) motion, they forfeited that
argument. See Eberhardt, 546 U.S. at 18–19.
We review the denial of a Rule 59(e) motion to amend for abuse of discretion.
Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cnty., Or. v. AcandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262 (9th Cir.
1993).
3
Prudential standing
Prudential standing requires that “the interest sought to be protected by the
complainant arguably [must be] within the zone of interests to be protected or
regulated by the statute . . . in question.” Ashley Creek Phosphate Co. v. Norton, 420
F.3d 934, 939–40 (9th Cir. 2005). Although the prudential standing test “is not meant
to be especially demanding,” Match-E-Be-Nash-She-Wish Band of Pottawatomi
Indians v. Patchak, 132 S. Ct. 2199, 2210 (2012) (internal quotation marks omitted),
the district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to identify a theory for
prudential standing that arguably was mentioned in a 39-page, single-spaced
attachment to the complaint, but such theory was neither articulated in the 33-page
complaint nor argued in response to the motion to dismiss.
American Mines alleges that its economic interests are within NEPA’s zone of
interests because its business is necessarily intertwined with the environment. The
district court concluded that American Mines’ efforts “were not environmental in
nature but were completed in pursuit of Plaintiffs’ economic interests in mineral
resource development and, therefore, do not fall within the environmental zone of
interests.” We agree.
The Ashley Creek court held that § 102 cannot be divorced from the overall
purpose of NEPA, which the court defined as “a national commitment to protecting
4
and promoting environmental quality.” Ashley Creek, 420 F.3d at 944–45. American
Mines asserts that its environmental interests are driven by considerations of
practicality, regulatory compliance, and business judgment that compel it to mine in
a responsible fashion. American Mines’ argument relies on three paragraphs in the
complaint that allege its commitment to environmental studies and mitigation
activities. However, these activities, as the district court correctly held, are
undertaken only as part of the pursuit of American Mines’ economic interests in
mining in the Payette Forest. These purely economic interests do not fall within
NEPA’s environmental zone of interests. See id. at 945; Ranchers Cattlemen Action
Legal Fund v. U.S. Dep’t of Agric., 415 F.3d 1078, 1103–04 (9th Cir. 2005); Nevada
Land Action Ass’n v. U.S. Forest Serv., 8 F.3d 713, 716 (9th Cir. 1993). Therefore,
American Mines lacks prudential standing.
AFFIRMED.
5