Ekberg v. United States ( 1997 )

F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
JUL 17 1997
TENTH CIRCUIT
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
CHARLES A. EKBERG,
Plaintiff - Appellant, No. 96-1331
v. (D. Colorado)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, (D.C. No. 95-WY-2105)
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
AGRICULTURE, UNITED STATES
FOREST SERVICE,
Defendants - Appellees.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT*
Before ANDERSON, HENRY, and BRISCOE, Circuit Judges.
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of this
appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case is therefore ordered
submitted without oral argument.
*
This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of
law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the
citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under
the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.
Charles A. Ekberg appeals the district court’s dismissal of his pro se action against
the United States of America, the Department of Agriculture, and the United States Forest
Services. He contends that the district court erred by finding that he lacked standing. We
affirm.
Ekberg brought this suit seeking damages for breach of contract and fraud due to
the government’s failure to complete an exchange of private land for government land.
Noting that Ekberg was not the owner of the private land, the district court concluded that
he lacked standing to bring the claim. We review the district court's rulings on standing
de novo. Mountain Side Mobile Estates Partnership v. Secretary of Housing & Urban
Dev., 56 F.3d 1243, 1249 (10th Cir. 1995).
Although Ekberg concedes that he never owned the private land, he asserts that he
had a contract interest to purchase it from the true owners (his parents), and he further
complains that he expended substantial personal funds when he represented the true
owners in trying to effectuate the exchange.1 However, Ekberg’s own affidavit indicates
that he represented the true property owners, not as a contract buyer, but pursuant to a
power of attorney. R. Vol. I, Tab 22 (Affidavit dated February 12, 1996, at ¶ 2, page 2.
Moreover, at the time Ekberg brought this suit, the true owners had transferred the private
As the district court noted, Ekberg’s responsive pleadings also indicate that the
1
property owners have refused to sell the property to him, and that, consequently, he has
placed a lis pendens against the property. R. Vol. I, Tab 22.
-2-
property into two trusts,2 which had entered into a contract to sell the property to a third
party.3 Id., Tab 15, at Ex. 5.
We have reviewed the entire file and, for substantially the same reasons set forth
by the district court in its order of dismissal, id., Tab 33, we AFFIRM.
ENTERED FOR THE COURT
Stephen H. Anderson
Circuit Judge
2
Ekberg, along with his other siblings, is a contingent beneficiary of the trusts. R.
Vol. I, Tab 15, Ex. 2.
3
Ekberg brought an unsuccessful suit challenging this contract. In the Matter of
the Harold M. Ekberg Family Trust and the Secrie L. Ekberg Living Trust, No. 95-1336
(Cir. Ct. S.D. filed Dec. 22, 1995). Appellee’s Supp. App. at 89-91.
-3-