NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS NOV 3 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
PAUL GREGORY SHEARER, No. 14-35566
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 3:03-cv-00263-TMB
v.
MEMORANDUM*
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Alaska
Timothy M. Burgess, Chief Judge, Presiding
Submitted October 25, 2016**
Before: LEAVY, GRABER, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Paul Gregory Shearer appeals pro se from the district court’s partial denial
of a motion to amend the judgment in his action seeking compensation for various
property rights taken by the United States. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §
1291. We review for an abuse of discretion a denial of a motion to amend the
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
judgment, Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255,
1262-63 (9th Cir. 1993), and we affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying in part Shearer’s
motion to amend the judgment because Shearer’s claim for additional interest
payments on the properties taken pursuant to Public Law 105-83, Section 120, was
foreclosed by the full and final settlement agreement he entered in 2008. See
Turner v. Burlington N. Santa Fe R.R. Co., 338 F.3d 1058, 1063 (9th Cir. 2003)
(setting forth grounds under which district courts may amend a judgment).
Similarly, Shearer’s contentions regarding the dismissal of his claims for
compensation for Parcels 3, 14, and 20 are mooted by the settlement agreement,
which includes a final resolution of all claims for compensation as to those Parcels.
The district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing, with prejudice,
several of Shearer’s quiet title and just compensation claims because Shearer did
not oppose dismissal and the district court had exclusive jurisdiction over those
claims. See Ahanchian v. Xenon Pictures, Inc., 624 F.3d 1253, 1255 (9th Cir.
2010) (describing district courts’ wide discretion in case management and
obligation “to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every
action” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)); Frigard v. United States,
2 14-35566
862 F.2d 201, 204 (9th Cir. 1988) (district court did not abuse its discretion in
dismissing with prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction where no other
court had power to hear the case).
The district court properly entered judgment based on a lack of subject
matter jurisdiction without granting Shearer leave to file further motions. See
Axess Int’l, Ltd. v. Intercargo Ins. Co., 183 F.3d 935, 943 (9th Cir. 1999) (without
an exercise of jurisdiction, a district court lacks the power to adjudicate other
claims or issues).
Defendants’ motion to strike any evidence or arguments Shearer presented
for the first time in his reply brief, filed on January 13, 2016, is granted.
AFFIRMED.
3 14-35566