Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-15-01126/USCOURTS-ca10-15-01126-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 899
Nature of Suit: Other Statutes - Administrative Procedure Act/Review or Appeal of Agency Decision
Cause of Action: 

---

FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

March 30, 2016

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

DINE CITIZENS AGAINST

RUINING OUR ENVIRONMENT;

SAN JUAN CITIZENS ALLIANCE;

SIERRA CLUB; CENTER FOR

BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY;

AMIGOS BRAVOS,

Plaintiffs - Appellees,

v.

UNITED STATES OFFICE OF

SURFACE MINING RECLAMATION

AND ENFORCEMENT, an agency

within the U.S. Department of the

Interior; SALLY JEWELL, in her

official capacity as Secretary of the

Interior; AL KLEIN, in his official

capacity as Regional Director of the

U.S. Offices of Surface Mining

Reclamation and Enforcement,

Western Region; BOB POSTLE, in his

official capacity as Manager of the

Program Support Division for the

Western Region of the Office of

Surface Mining Reclamation and

Enforcement; RICK WILLIAMSON,

in his official capacity as Manager of

the Indian Programs Branch of the

Western Region of the Office of

Surface Mining Reclamation and

Enforcement; MYCHAL

YELLOWMAN, in his official

capacity as Navajo Mine Team Leader

in the Office of Surface Mining

Reclamation and Enforcement,

No. 15-1126

(D.C. No. 1:12-CV-01275-JLK)

(D. Colo.)

Appellate Case: 15-1126 Document: 01019594730 Date Filed: 03/30/2016 Page: 1 
Defendants.

---------------------------

THE NAVAJO TRANSITIONAL

ENERGY COMPANY, LLC,

 Intervenor Defendant - 

 Appellant,

and

THE NAVAJO NATION,

 Intervenor Defendant.

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

Before KELLY, MATHESON, and MORITZ, Circuit Judges.**

A recitation of the facts in this case is unnecessary, as the parties are

familiar with them. Both parties agree we lack jurisdiction to hear this appeal,

though for different reasons. The Intervenor Defendant-Appellant maintains that

this case is constitutionally moot. The Plaintiffs-Appellees argue instead that we

*

 This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited,

however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th

Cir. R. 32.1.

** After examining the briefs and the appellate record, this three-judge

panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not be of material

assistance in the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th

Cir. R. 34.1(G). The cause is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.

- 2 -

Appellate Case: 15-1126 Document: 01019594730 Date Filed: 03/30/2016 Page: 2 
cannot reach the mootness issue because the district court’s remand was not a

final decision, see 28 U.S.C. § 1291, nor had the practical effect of an injunction,

see 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1). We are not so constrained and may dismiss on any

jurisdictional ground. Cf. Ruhrgas AG v. Marathon Oil Co., 526 U.S. 574, 578

(1999); Boyce v. Ashcroft, 268 F.3d 953, 955 (10th Cir. 2001) (“Although the

court may have discretion to decide subject matter jurisdiction before reaching the

issue of mootness, however, we find no reason to do so in this case. The matter is

unquestionably moot. The court therefore vacates its judgment and remands to

the district court with directions to vacate its judgment as moot.”). 

Pending this appeal, the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and

Enforcement, in accordance with the district court’s remand, issued a Revised

Environmental Assessment and Finding of No New Significant Impact as well as

re-approved the permit revision. Aplt. Notice of Supp. Auth. Because this case

now lacks a live case or controversy, we lack subject matter jurisdiction. New

Mexico ex rel. Richardson v. Bureau of Land Mgmt., 565 F.3d 683, 701 (10th Cir.

2009). Therefore, we dismiss the appeal as constitutionally moot and vacate the

district court’s March 2, 2015 opinion and order (Doc. 79), its April 6, 2015

remedies order (Doc. 83), and its Final Judgment (Doc. 86).

Entered for the Court

Paul J. Kelly, Jr.

Circuit Judge

- 3 -

Appellate Case: 15-1126 Document: 01019594730 Date Filed: 03/30/2016 Page: 3