Case ID: f-appx_282/html/0637-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

ANIMAL PROTECTION AND RESCUE LEAGUE, a non profit corporation; Dorota Valli, an individual, Plaintiffs-Appellants, Valerie O’ Sullivan, Intervenor-Intervenor, v. State of CALIFORNIA; The City of San Diego Department of Parks and Recreation; Jerry Sanders, Mayor; Does, 1 to 100, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 08-55319.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Argued and Submitted June 4, 2008.
    Decided June 17, 2008.
    Bryan W. Pease, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiffs-Appellants.
    Animal Protection and Rescue League, San Diego, CA, pro se.
    Paul Robert Kennerson, Kennerson & Grant LLP, San Diego, CA, for Intervenor-Intervenor.
    Valerie O’ Sullivan, San Diego, CA, pro se.
    Christina Bull Arndt, AGCA-Office of the California Attorney General, Los Angeles, CA, George F. Schaefer, City Attorney’s Office, Jerry Sanders, George F. Schaefer, Law Offices of George F. Schaefer, San Diego, CA, Peter McVeigh, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Defendants-Appellees.
    The City of San Diego Department of Parks and Recreation, Law Offices of George F. Schaefer, San Diego, CA, pro se.
    Before: KOZINSKI, Chief Judge, ALDISERT, and D.W. NELSON, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The Honorable Ruggero J. Aldisert, Senior United States Circuit Judge for the Third Circuit, sitting by designation.
    
   MEMORANDUM

Appellants challenge the application of a state law that was interpreted by a state court to require the dispersal of a colony of harbor seals. Appellants contend that the state law conflicts with the local government’s obligations under the federal Marine Mammal Protection Act (“MMPA”). The district court dismissed the suit pursuant to the Younger abstention doctrine. See Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 91 S.Ct. 746, 27 L.Ed.2d 669 (1971).

We lack federal question jurisdiction over this matter. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Appellants are not challenging the grant or denial of a permit application under the MMPA. See 16 U.S.C. § 1374(d)(6). This court does not otherwise have jurisdiction to consider appellants’ suit seeking to enforce the terms of the MMPA. See Didrickson v. U.S. Dep’t of Interior, 982 F.2d 1332, 1338 (9th Cir.1992) (“[T]he MMPA does not provide for citizens to sue to enforce the statute”).

DISMISSED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.