Barbara A. Sims v. Steven Ellis , 668 F. App'x 689 ( 2016 )


Menu:
  •                                                                             FILED
    NOT FOR PUBLICATION
    SEP 19 2016
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    BARBARA A. SIMS, as personal                     No.   14-35151
    representative of the Estate of Sandy
    Howard Sims,                                     D.C. No. 1:12-cv-00505-EJL
    Plaintiff-Appellant,
    MEMORANDUM*
    v.
    STEVEN ELLIS, in his official capacity as
    the Director of the Idaho State office of the
    US Bureau of Land Management; MIKE
    POOL, in his official capacity as the
    Acting Director of the US Bureau of Land
    Management; SALLY JEWELL, in her
    official capacity as the Secretary of the US
    Department of the Interior,
    Defendants-Appellees.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the District of Idaho
    Edward J. Lodge, District Judge, Presiding
    Argued and Submitted August 31, 2016
    Seattle, Washington
    *
    This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
    except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
    Before: HAWKINS, McKEOWN, and DAVIS,** Circuit Judges.
    Barbara Sims, on behalf of the estate of Sandy Sims, seeks an order from the
    district court to the Bureau of Land Management and the Department of the
    Interior (collectively the “agency”) to issue patent on seven mill site claims
    associated with the Democrat Mine in Idaho. Because rights to a patent do not vest
    until a validity determination is completed, the district court did not have discretion
    to issue the requested order under the Mandamus and Venue Act, 28 U.S.C.
    § 1361, or the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 706. We therefore affirm
    the district court’s denial of the requested relief.
    Sims’s argument that rights to a patent vest upon the submission of an
    application and the payment of fees is squarely foreclosed by this court’s
    precedents. R.T. Vanderbilt Co. v. Babbitt, 
    113 F.3d 1061
    , 1068 (9th Cir. 2007)
    (“Thus, ‘no rights [in a patent claim] vest before the Secretary has decided whether
    to contest the patent claim.’” (alteration in original) (quoting Indep. Mining Co. v.
    Babbitt, 
    105 F.3d 502
    , 508 (9th Cir. 1997))).
    Because Sims had no vested right to a patent prior to a validity
    determination by the agency, there was no “plainly prescribed” ministerial duty
    **
    The Honorable Andre M. Davis, Senior Circuit Judge for the U.S.
    Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, sitting by designation.
    2
    that the district court could have ordered the agency to perform. Or. Nat. Res.
    Council v. Harrell, 
    52 F.3d 1499
    , 1508 (9th Cir. 1995). Sims seeks a
    determination of patent validity, and that determination remains within the
    province of the agency. The district court therefore lacked the authority to order
    the agency to issue the patent. See Norton v. S. Utah Wilderness All., 
    542 U.S. 55
    ,
    65 (2004) (“[A] court can compel the agency to act, but has no power to specify
    what the action must be.”).
    We also reject Sims’s alternative arguments that the pending contest
    proceeding in the agency is barred by Section 322(c) of the Omnibus Consolidated
    Rescissions and Appropriations Act of 1996 (“Appropriations Act”), Pub. L. No.
    104-134, 110 Stat. 1321; the statute of limitations at 28 U.S.C. § 2462; or by
    principles of equitable estoppel or laches. The timeline for processing
    grandfathered patents under the Appropriations Act is not an enforceable deadline.
    Likewise, the five-year statute of limitations is inapplicable because it only applies
    where there has been a fine, penalty, or forfeiture. Sims has no vested right to the
    patent which could be forfeited. Finally, equitable relief is not available because
    “we have long held that affirmative government misconduct must be proven
    against the government [in order to assert equitable estoppel].” United States v.
    Harvey, 
    661 F.2d 767
    , 773-74 (9th Cir. 1981); see also United States v. Cappaert,
    3
    
    508 F.2d 313
    , 319 (9th Cir. 1974) (“[Government] officers who have no authority
    at all to dispose of Government property cannot b[y] their conduct cause the
    Government to lose its valuable rights by their acquiescence, laches, or failure to
    act.” (quoting United States v. California, 
    332 U.S. 19
    , 40 (1947))). The district
    court did not abuse its discretion in finding that there was no bad faith in the
    lengthy delay.
    AFFIRMED.
    4