N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
B ARB AR

A A. SIM S, a s pe rsona l re pre se ntative of the Esta te of San dy Howa rd Sim s, Pla i ntiff-Appe lla

nt,
v. STEVEN ELLIS, in his offic ia l c a pa c ity a s the Dire c tor of the Idaho Sta te offic e of the US B ure a u of La nd M ana ge m e nt; M IKE POOL, in his offic ia l c a

pa c ity a s the Ac ting Dire c tor of the US B ure a u of La nd M ana ge m e nt; SALLY JEWE LL, in he r offic ia l c a pa c ity a s the Se c re ta

ry of the US De pa rtm e nt of the Inte rior, De fe nda n ts-Appe lle e s. No. 14-35151 D.C . No. 1:12-c v-00505-EJL
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ida

ho Edwa rd J. Lodge , Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d a nd Subm i tte d August 31, 2016 Se a ttle , W a s hington 

# FIL ED SEP 19 2016 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public a t ion 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.B e fore : HAW KINS, M c KEOW N, a nd DAVIS, ** C irc uit Judge s. B arbara Sim s, on be ha lf of the e sta te of Sandy

Sim s , se e ks a

n orde r from

the distric t c o urt to the B ure a u o f La nd M an a ge m e nt a

nd the De pa

rtm e n t of the Inte rior (c olle c tive ly

the “ a ge nc y ” ) to issue pate n t on se ve n m ill sitec la im s
a ssoc iate d with theDe m oc ra t M ine in Ida ho. B e c a use rights to a

pate nt do not ve st until a va lidity

de te rm ination is c om

ple te d, the distric t c ourt did not ha ve disc re tion to issuethe re que ste d orde r unde r the M anda m us a nd Ve n ue Ac t, 28 U.S.C
. § 1361, or theAdm inistra tive Proc e dure Ac t, 5 U.S.C . § 706. W e the re fore a ffirm the d istric t c o urt’ s de nia l of the re que ste d re lie f. Sim s’ s a rgum e nt tha

t rights to a

pate nt ve st upon the subm ission of a n
a pplic a tion a

nd the pa ym e nt of fe e s is squa

re ly fore c lose d by

this c ourt’ s pre c e de nts. R.T. Vande rbilt C o. v . Babbitt , 113 F.3d 1061, 1068 (9th C ir. 2007) (“ Thus, ‘ no rights [in a

pate nt c la im ] ve st be fore the Se c re ta ry ha s de c ide d whe the r to c o nte st the pate nt c la i m .’ ” (a lte ra tion in origina l) (quoting Inde

p. Mining C

o. v . Babbitt , 105 F.3d 502, 508 (9th C ir. 1997))). B e c a use Sim s ha d no ve ste d right to a pate nt prior to a

va lidity de te rm i nation by

the a ge nc y , the re wa s no “pla inly pre sc ribe d ” m iniste ria l duty

** The Honora

ble Andre M . Dav is, Se nior C irc uit Judgefor the U.S. C ourt of Appe a ls for the Fourth C irc uit, sitting by de signa tion. 2that

the distric t c ourt c ould ha ve orde re d the a ge nc y

to pe rform
. Or. N

at. Re s. C ounc il v . Harre ll , 52 F.3d 1499, 1508 (9th C ir. 1995). Sim s se e ks a de te rm i nation of pa

te nt va lidity , a

n d tha t de te rm ination re m a ins within the provinc e of the a ge nc y . The distric t c ourt the re fore la c ke d the a uthority to orde r the a ge nc y to issue the pate nt. Se e N orton v . S. Utah W

ilde rne ss All. , 542 U.S. 55, 65 (2004) (“ [A] c o urt c an c om pe l the a ge nc y

to a c t, but ha s no powe r to spe c ify what the a c tion m

ust be .” ). W e a lso re

je c t Sim s’ s a lte rna tive argum e nts tha t the pe nding c onte st proc e e ding in the

a ge nc y is ba rre d by Se c tion 322(c ) of the Om nibus C onsolida

te d R e sc issions a

nd Appropria

tions Ac t of 1996 (“ Appropria tions Ac t” ), Pub. L. No. 104-134, 110 Sta

t. 1321; the

sta tute of lim ita

tions a t 28 U.S.C . § 2462; or by princ iple s of e quita

ble e s toppe l or la c he s. The tim e line for proc e ssing gran dfa the re d pate nts unde r the Appropria tions Ac t is not a

n e nforc e a

ble de a dline
. Like wise , the five -y e ar statute of lim ita tions is ina

pplic a ble be c a use it only

a pplie s whe re the re ha s be e n

a fine , pe na lty , or forfe iture . Sim s ha s no ve ste d right to the pate nt whic h c ould be forfe ite d. Fina lly , e quita ble re lie f is not a

va ila ble be c a use

“ we have long he ld tha

t a ffirm a tive gove rnm e n t m isc onduc t m ust be prove n
a ga inst thegove rnm e nt [in orde r to a sse rt e quita ble e s toppe l] .” Unite d State s v . Harv e y , 661 F.2d 767, 773-74 (9th C ir. 1981); se e also Unite d State s v . C appae rt , 3508 F.2d 313, 319 (9th C ir. 1974) (“ [Gove rnm e nt] offic e rs who ha ve no a uthority
a t a ll to dispose

of Gove rnm e n t prope rty

c a nnot b[y ] the ir c onduc t c a use the Gove rnm e nt to loseits va lua ble rights by

the ir a c q uie sc e nc e , la c he s, or fa i lure to
a c t.” (quoting Unite d State s v . C alifornia , 332 U.S. 19, 40 (1947))). The distric t
c ourt did not a

buse its disc re t ion in finding tha t the re wa s no ba d fa ith in the le ngthy de l ay . AFFIRM E D.

4