Case Name: Bobby Len FRANKLIN; et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. UNITED STATES BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT; et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-04-04
Citations: 125 F. App'x 152
Docket Number: No. 04-16698; D.C. No. CV-04-00128-RLH/PAL
Parties: Bobby Len FRANKLIN; et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. UNITED STATES BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before B. FLETCHER, TROTT, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 125
Pages: 152–153

Head Matter:
Bobby Len FRANKLIN; et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. UNITED STATES BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 04-16698.
D.C. No. CV-04-00128-RLH/PAL.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted March 23, 2005.
Decided April 4, 2005.
Bobby Len Franklin, Mesa, AZ, pro se.
Robert Lee Franklin, Mesa, AZ, pro se.
Donna Sue Owens, Mesa, AZ, pro se.
Elizabeth Ann Peterson, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice Environment & Natural Resources Division, Washington, DC, Blaine T. Welsh, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Las Vegas, NV, for Defendants-Appellees.
Before B. FLETCHER, TROTT, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2). Therefore, Appellants' motion for oral argument is denied.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Bobby Len Franklin, Robert Lee Franklin, and Donna Sue Owens appeal pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing their appeal from the Depart ment of Interior Board of Land Appeals' decision affirming the Bureau of Land Management's denial of their application for Desert Land Entry under 42 U.S.C. § 821 et seq. Appellants also appeal the district court's order denying their motion for relief from judgment and their motion for trial by jury. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court's determination that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction, see Botsford v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Montana, Inc., 814 F.3d 390, 392 (9th Cir.2002), and for abuse of discretion its denial of a motion to reconsider, see Ayers v. City of Richmond, 895 F.2d 1267, 1269 (9th Cir.1990).
We affirm for the reasons set forth in the district court's orders dated June 8, 2004 and July 30, 2004.
Appellants' remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.