NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

PAUL GREGORY SHEARER,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; et al.,

Defendants

- Appellees. No. 14

- 35566
D.C. No. 3:03

- cv - 00263

- TMB

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Alaska Timothy M. Burgess, Chief Judge, Presiding Submitted October 25, 2016 **

Before: LEAVY, GRABER, and CHRISTEN , Circuit Judges.
Paul Gregory Shearer appeals pro se from the district court’s partial denial

of a motion to amend the judgment in his action seeking compensation for various
property rights taken by the United States. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §

1291. We revi ew for an abuse of discretion a denial of a motion to amend the

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

NOV 3 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 14

- 35566

judgment, Sch. Dist . No. 1J, Multnomah C ty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc. , 5 F.3d 1255,

1262

- 63 (9th Cir. 1993) , and we affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying in part Shear er’s

motio n to amend the judgment because Shearer’s claim for additional interest
payments on the properties taken pursuant to Public Law 105

- 83 , Section 120 , was foreclosed by the full and final settlement agreement he entered in 2008

. See

Turner v. Burl ington N. Santa Fe R. R. Co. , 338 F.3d 1058, 1063 (9th Cir. 2003)
( setting forth grounds under which district courts may amend a judgment).
Similarly, Shearer’s contentions regarding the dismissal of his claims for
compensation for Parcels 3, 14, and 20 are mooted by the settlement agreement , which includes a final resolution of all claims for compensation as to those Parcels

.
The district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing , with prejudice ,
several of Shearer’s quiet title and just compensa tion claims because Shearer did
not oppose dismissal and the district court had exclusive jurisdiction over those

claims. See Ahanchian v. Xenon Pictures, Inc. , 624 F.3d 1253, 1255 (9th Cir.
2010) ( describing d istrict courts ’ wide discretion in case manag ement and
obligation “ to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every

action” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)); Frigard v. United States ,3 14

- 35566

862 F.2d 201, 204 (9th Cir. 1988) (district court did not abuse its discretion in

d ismissing with prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction where no other
court had power to hear the case).

The district court properly entered judgment based on a lack of subject
matter jurisdiction without grant ing Shearer leave to file further motions. See

Axess Int’ l, Ltd. v. Intercargo Ins. Co. , 183 F.3d 935, 943 (9th Cir. 1999) (without
an exercise of jurisdiction, a district court lacks the power to adjudicate other

claims or issues).

D efendants’ motion to stri ke any eviden ce or arguments Shearer presented
for the first time in his reply brief , filed on January 13, 2016, is granted.

AFFIRMED.