NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS AUG 17 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JERRI JOETTE TILLETT, No. 16-35465
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. Nos. 1:15-cv-00048-SPW
1:15-cv-00061-SPW
v.
BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT; et MEMORANDUM*
al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Montana
Susan P. Watters, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted August 9, 2017**
Before: SCHROEDER, TASHIMA, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Jerri Joette Tillett appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment
in her actions challenging the decisions and actions of defendants Bureau of Land
Management, Interior Board of Land Appeals, and the United States Department of
the Interior (collectively, “BLM”) in connection with the management of wild
*
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).
horses on the Pryor Mountain Wild Horse Range (“PMWHR”). We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. In Def. of Animals v.
U.S. Dep’t of Interior, 751 F.3d 1054, 1061 (9th Cir. 2014). We may affirm on
any ground supported by the record. San Jose Christian Coll. v. City of Morgan
Hill, 360 F.3d 1024, 1030 (9th Cir. 2004). We affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment on Tillett’s
challenges to BLM’s decisions and actions regarding fertility control and gather of
wild horses on the PMWHR because Tillett failed to raise a genuine dispute of
material fact as to whether those decisions and actions were arbitrary, capricious,
an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law. See In Def. of
Animals, 751 F.3d at 1061 (setting forth standards for review under the
Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”) of BLM decisions and actions
implementing the Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act).
The district court properly determined that it lacked subject matter
jurisdiction over Tillett’s claim for monetary relief because Tillett failed to show
that BLM expressly waived its sovereign immunity for such a claim. See
Holloman v. Watt, 708 F.2d 1399, 1401 (9th Cir. 1983) (stating that waiver of
sovereign immunity for suit for money damages “must be unequivocally
expressed,” and “[t]he party who sues the United States bears the burden of
pointing to such an unequivocal waiver of immunity” (citations and internal
2 16-35465
quotation marks omitted)); Tucson Airport Auth. v. Gen. Dynamics Corp., 136 F.3d
641, 644 (9th Cir. 1998) (the APA does not provide a waiver of sovereign
immunity for money damages claims). The district court also properly determined
that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over Tillett’s claim for investigation of
BLM’s alleged perjury, corruption and other criminal conduct because the district
court lacks authority to initiate an investigation. See United States v. Edmonson,
792 F.2d 1492, 1497 (9th Cir. 1986) (“The Executive Branch has exclusive and
absolute discretion to decide whether to prosecute.” (citation and internal quotation
marks omitted)).
Tillett’s challenge to the district court’s alleged failure to adjudicate her
motions for preliminary injunction is dismissed as moot. See Mt. Graham Red
Squirrel v. Madigan, 954 F.2d 1441, 1449-50 (9th Cir. 1992) (when underlying
claims have been decided, reversal of district court’s effective denial of a
preliminary injunction would have no practical consequences, and the issue is
therefore moot).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by granting BLM’s motion to
strike Tillett’s original brief in response to BLM’s summary judgment motion
because Tillett’s brief did not comply with the local rules. See El Pollo Loco, Inc.
v. Hashim, 316 F.3d 1032, 1038 (9th Cir. 2003) (setting forth standard of review);
see also D. Mont. Civ. R. 1.5(a)(2) (requirements for documents filed with court)
3 16-35465
& R. 7.1(d)(2) (limitations on length of briefs).
We do not consider arguments and allegations raised for the first time on
appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
We reject as unsupported by the record Tillett’s contentions regarding
alleged misconduct by the magistrate judge and district judge.
AFFIRMED.
4 16-35465