Juanita Steele v. Cecelia Hernandez , 377 F. App'x 616 ( 2010 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION APR 21 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JUANITA STEELE, No. 08-17211
No. 08-17219
Plaintiff - Appellee,
D.C. No. 2:06-cv-02088-MCE-
v. EFB
CECELIA HERNANDEZ, and MARVIN
MELVIN HILPERT, AKA Moon, MEMORANDUM *
Defendants - Appellants,
and
MARSHA TOLEN,
Defendant.
Appeals from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Morrison C. England, Jr., District Judge, Presiding
Submitted April 5, 2010 **
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes these cases are suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Before: RYMER, McKEOWN, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
In these consolidated appeals, Cecilia Hernandez and Marvin Hilpert appeal
pro se from final orders of the district court in Juanita Steele’s action seeking to
eject them from restricted Indian lands. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1291. We affirm.
In No. 08-17211, to the extent Hernandez challenges the validity of the
settlement agreement she entered with Steele, we lack jurisdiction to consider those
challenges because Hernandez failed to file a timely appeal from the judgment
approving the settlement. See Fed. R. App. P. 4 (setting forth the time for appeal);
Stephanie-Cardona LLC v. Smith’s Food & Drug Ctrs., Inc., 476 F.3d 701, 703
(9th Cir. 2002) (“A timely notice of appeal is a non-waivable jurisdictional
requirement.”). The district court did not err by enforcing the judgment because
Hernandez had failed to comply with it.
In No. 08-17219, the district court properly granted summary adjudication
because, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Hilpert, there are no
genuine issues of material fact regarding his interest in the land. See Fontana v.
Haskin, 262 F.3d 871, 876 (9th Cir. 2001) (reviewing de novo a grant of summary
adjudication and stating that summary adjudication is proper where there are no
genuine issues of material fact). Hilpert’s contention that the court granted
2
summary adjudication without proper notice and an opportunity to be heard lacks
merit.
Contrary to Hilpert’s contention, the district court had subject matter
jurisdiction over this action. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (“The district courts shall have
original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or
treaties of the United States.”); United States v. Milner, 583 F.3d 1174, 1182 (9th
Cir. 2009) (“Federal common law governs an action for trespass on Indian lands.”).
Further, Steele had standing to bring this action based on her interest in the land.
See Agua Caliente Band of Mission Indians v. County of Riverside, 442 F.2d 1184,
1186 (9th Cir. 1971) (“An Indian, as the beneficial owner of lands held by the
United States in trust has a right acting independently of the United States to sue to
protect his property interests.”).
Hilpert’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
No. 08-17211: AFFIRMED.
No. 08-17219: AFFIRMED.
3