Opinion ID: 720272
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Order of Contempt.

Text: 28 In his separate pro se appeal, Mr. Smith appeals the order of the district court holding him in contempt. After an order to show cause, the court determined that Mr. Smith had conducted mining operations on his claim despite the court's order to the contrary. Mr. Smith's arguments generally go to validity of his mining claim. These arguments do not furnish a basis for vacating the contempt order. A contemnor cannot ordinarily raise the invalidity of the judicial order as a defense to a contempt charge. In re Establishment Inspection of Hern Iron Works, 881 F.2d 722, 726 (9th Cir.1989). It was incumbent upon Mr. Smith to obey the district court order not to mine, even if the administrative decision denying his mining claim was wrong. 29 Mr. Smith's remaining contentions are without merit. Mr. Smith has no Seventh Amendment right to jury trial because the district court determined only legal issues. Sengupta v. Morrison-Knudsen Co., Inc., 804 F.2d 1072, 1077 n. 3 (9th Cir.1986). Neither we nor the district court have jurisdiction over Mr. Smith's Fifth Amendment takings claim, which is a claim for over $10,000 lodged against the United States for an alleged constitutional violation. 28 U.S.C. § 1346(a)(2); Clouser v. Espy, 42 F.3d 1522, 1539 (9th Cir.1994). Mr. Smith's arguments that the government wrongly interfered with and trespassed on his land are meritless because the land in question is federal land, and not private land. Also, Smith failed to exhaust administrative remedies. 28 U.S.C. § 2675(a). 30