N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
W ESTER N R ADIO SER

VIC ES C OM PANY, INC .,

Pla i ntiff-Appe lla

nt,
v. JOHN ALLEN, De sc hute s Nationa l Fore st Supe rvisor; KATE KLEIN, Ochoc o Nationa l Fore st Supe rvisor; KEVIN LAR KIN, B e nd-Fort R oc k Distric t R an ge r; SLATER

R . TUR NER , Lookout M ounta in/C rooke d

R ive r Nationa l Gra s sla nd Distric t R ange r; RIC K W ESSLER , Spe c ia l Use Pe rm its, B e n d/Fort Roc k

R ange r Distric t; LISA DILLEY, Spe c ia l Use Pe rm its, B e nd/Fort R oc k R ange r Distric t; HEIDI SC OTT, Spe c ia l Use Pe rm its, Oc hoc o Nationa l Fore st; KAR

EN B R A ND, Spe c ia l Use Pe rm its, Oc hoc o Nationa l Fore st; UNITED STATES FOR

EST SER VIC E; KENT C ONNAUGHTON, Re giona l Fore ste r; M AUREEN HYZER , Ac ting R e g iona l Fore ste r,

De fe nda nts-Appe lle e s. No. 16-35105 D.C . No. 6:14-c v-00747-AA
M EM O R ANDUM * 

# FIL ED

MAR 23 2018 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U

. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a

ppropria te for public ation a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.Appe a l from the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ore gon Ann L. Aiken, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d a nd Submitte d M a

rc h 7, 2018 Portla nd, Ore gon B e fore : FISHER , N.R . SM ITH a nd HUR W ITZ, C irc u it Judge s. W e ste rn R a dio Se rvic e s C om pa ny , Inc . (W e ste rn R a dio) a ppe a ls thedistric t
c ourt’ s dismissa l of its c la im s unde r Biv e ns v . Six Unk now n N ame d Age nts of the Fe de ral Bure au of N

arc otic s , 403 U.S. 388 (1971), a nd sum m ary judgm e nt in favor of theUnite d State s Fore st Se rvic e on its c la i m s unde r the Adm inistra tive Proc e d ure Ac t, 5 U.S.C . §§ 702-706 a nd theFore s t Se rvic e ’ s c ounte rc la i m s for tre spa ss a nd unjust enric hm e nt . W e have jurisdic tion under 28 U.S.C . § 1291, we
re vie w de novo, se eHe lls C any on Pre

s. C ounc il v . U.S. Fore

s t Se r v . , 593 F.3d 923, 929 (9th C ir. 2010), a nd we a ffirm
. 1. The distric t c ourt prope rly dismisse d W e ste rn R a dio’ s B iv e ns c la im s a s fore c lose d by

pre c e de nt. Se e W

. Radio Se rv

s. C o. v . U.S. Fore

st Se rv . , 578 F.3d 1116, 1122-23 (9th C ir. 2009) (“ [T] he APA le ave s no room for Biv e ns c l a im s ba se d on a ge nc y

a c t ion or ina c t ion.” ). W e de c line W e ste rn R a dio’ s invita tion to fa shion a Biv e ns re m e dy for those Fore st Se rvic e de c isions not subje c t to a dm inistra t ive a ppe a l – for e x am

ple , the

2Fore st Se rvic e ’ s de c ision not to re ne w c e rta in le a se s a

nd pe rm i ts upon e xpiration – be c a use the a b se nc e of a

uthoriz e d a

ppe a l proc e dure s doe s not ne c e ssa rily re nde r an
a ge nc y ’ s de c ision a

ny le ss fina l. Se eDarby

v . C isne ros , 509 U.S. 137, 146 (1993) (“ Whe n a n a ggrie v e d pa

rty ha s e xha uste d a ll a dm inistra

tive re m e die s e xpre ssly pre s c ribe d by

sta tute or a ge n c y

rule , the a ge nc y

a c t ion is final for the purpose s of [the APA] and the re fore subje c t to judic ia l re v ie w . . . .” (inte rna l quota tion m arks
om i tte d)); c

f. W . Radio Se r

v s. C o. v . Glic k

m an , 123 F.3d 1189, 1196-97 (9th C ir. 1997) (holding a

c ha lle nge to propose d c onstruc t ion wa s not ripefor re vie wuntil the Fore st Se rvic e c onc lude d its e nvironm e nta l a sse ssm e nt). W e ste rn R a dio give s
us no re a son to be lie ve the Fore st Se rvic e ’ s m ultipleform a l notific ations of its de c isions do not c onstitute “ fina l a ge nc y

a c tion” unde r the APA, a nd we re vie w the m a c c ordingly
. Se e Darby , 509 U.S. a t 144-46 (de fining “ fina l a ge nc y a c tion” unde r 5 U.S.C
. § 704). 2. The distric t c ourt a lso prope rly c onc lude d the Fore st Se rvic e a c te d
rationa lly whe n it (1) re voke d W e ste rn R a dio’ s e xisting le a se at Suga r Pine B utte ; (2) re je c te d ne w le a s e s a

nd pe rm its a

t Suga r Pine B utte , Gray B utte and R ound M ounta in; (3) ba c k-bille d W e ste rn R a dio for a te na nt’ s re nt a t Gra y B utte ; (4) re je c te d W e ste rn R a dio’ s pe rm it a n d de ve l opm e nt pla

ns a t Suga r Pine B utte
and South Pa

ulina Pe ak ; a nd (5) de m an de d re m ova l of W e ste rn R a dio’ s fa c ilitie s .

3W e ste rn R a dio ha s ne ithe r pointe d to a ny arbitra ry or irrationa l a c tion by

the Fore st Se rvic e nor ide ntifie d a

ny furthe r proc e s s to whic h W e ste rn R a dio wa s e ntitle d be fore the re voc ation or non-re ne wa l of its le a se s a nd pe rm its. TheFore st Se rvic e ’ s de c isions were not c ontra ry to thee vide nc e be fore the a ge nc y or im pla usiblein light of it. Se eTurtle Island Re

storation N

e tw ork v . U.S. De

p’t of C omme rc e , 878 F.3d 725, 732-33 (9th C ir. 2017). 3. Fina lly , the distric t c ourt prope rly grante d sum m ary judgm e nt on the Fore st Se rvic e ’ s c ounte rc la i m s for tre spa ss a nd unjust enric hm e nt. C ontra ry to W e ste rn R a dio’ s a

rgum e nt, tre spa ss doe s not re quire a showing of “ inte rfe re nc e ” with thela

nd or its fa c ilitie s. Se eRic h v . Tite -K not Pine Mill , 421 P.2d 370, 373 (Or. 1966). W e like w ise re j e c t W e ste rn R a dio’ s a

rgum e nt tha

t the pa rtie s’ the ne xpire d le a se provisions c onstra ine d the Fore s t Se rvic e ’ s options for c olle c ting unpa id fe e s; the Fore st Se rvic e prope rly brought a

n unjust enric hm e nt c l a im and
wa s a warde d the fe e s W e ste rn R a dio would ha ve be e n c ha

rge d ha d it obtaine d
a uthoriz ation to c o ntinueope rating a t the re le v ant site s. AFFIRM E D.

4