Opinion ID: 527105
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Other Bases for Jurisdiction

Text: 20 CENEX claims that even if citizen suit jurisdiction was lacking in this case, alternative grounds for the district court's jurisdiction exist, namely 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1331, because CENEX alleged a takings claim in its complaint, and 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1361. We disagree. 21 CENEX's complaint contains no reference to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1361. In any case, that section fails to confer jurisdiction to compel agency action where review by other means is possible. Telecommunications Research and Action v. FCC, 750 F.2d 70, 77-78 (D.C.Cir.1984). Here review was possible under section 307 of the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 7607, in the court of appeals. 22 Nor can the district court's jurisdiction rest on CENEX's takings claim. The district court expressly dismissed those claims for relief sought by CENEX in its complaint that do not appear in or were not otherwise addressed by the magistrate. CENEX's claim was not addressed by the magistrate, and CENEX did not appeal this portion of the district court's decision. Thus the district court clearly based its jurisdiction on the citizen suit provision alone. 23 Accordingly, the injunction is VACATED, and this action is REMANDED with instructions to dismiss the complaint.