*This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of

law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the

citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under

the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.

F I L E D

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

JUL 17 1997

PATRICK FISHER

Clerk

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

CHARLES A. EKBERG,

Plaintiff - Appellant, No. 96-1331

v. (D. Colorado)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF

AGRICULTURE, UNITED STATES

FOREST SERVICE,

Defendants - Appellees.

(D.C. No. 95-WY-2105) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

Before ANDERSON, HENRY, and BRISCOE, Circuit Judges.

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined

unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of this

appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case is therefore ordered

submitted without oral argument.
1As the district court noted, Ekberg’s responsive pleadings also indicate that the

property owners have refused to sell the property to him, and that, consequently, he has

placed a lis pendens against the property. R. Vol. I, Tab 22. 

-2-

Charles A. Ekberg appeals the district court’s dismissal of his pro se action against

the United States of America, the Department of Agriculture, and the United States Forest

Services. He contends that the district court erred by finding that he lacked standing. We

affirm.

Ekberg brought this suit seeking damages for breach of contract and fraud due to

the government’s failure to complete an exchange of private land for government land. 

Noting that Ekberg was not the owner of the private land, the district court concluded that

he lacked standing to bring the claim. We review the district court's rulings on standing

de novo. Mountain Side Mobile Estates Partnership v. Secretary of Housing & Urban

Dev., 56 F.3d 1243, 1249 (10th Cir. 1995). 

Although Ekberg concedes that he never owned the private land, he asserts that he

had a contract interest to purchase it from the true owners (his parents), and he further

complains that he expended substantial personal funds when he represented the true

owners in trying to effectuate the exchange.1 However, Ekberg’s own affidavit indicates

that he represented the true property owners, not as a contract buyer, but pursuant to a

power of attorney. R. Vol. I, Tab 22 (Affidavit dated February 12, 1996, at ¶ 2, page 2. 

Moreover, at the time Ekberg brought this suit, the true owners had transferred the private
2Ekberg, along with his other siblings, is a contingent beneficiary of the trusts. R.

Vol. I, Tab 15, Ex. 2. 

3Ekberg brought an unsuccessful suit challenging this contract. In the Matter of

the Harold M. Ekberg Family Trust and the Secrie L. Ekberg Living Trust, No. 95-1336

(Cir. Ct. S.D. filed Dec. 22, 1995). Appellee’s Supp. App. at 89-91. 

-3-

property into two trusts,2

 which had entered into a contract to sell the property to a third

party.3

 Id., Tab 15, at Ex. 5.

We have reviewed the entire file and, for substantially the same reasons set forth

by the district court in its order of dismissal, id., Tab 33, we AFFIRM.

ENTERED FOR THE COURT

Stephen H. Anderson

Circuit Judge