FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUN 17 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ROGER HANSEN; et al., No. 12-15206
Plaintiffs - Appellants, D.C. No. 3:10-cv-08224-GMS
v.
MEMORANDUM *
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
AGRICULTURE; THOMAS JAMES
VILSACK, in his official capacity as
Secretary of Agriculture,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
G. Murray Snow, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 10, 2013 **
Before: HAWKINS, McKEOWN, and BERZON, Circuit Judges.
Roger, Connie, Logan, and Jeanette Hansen (the “Hansens”) appeal pro se
from the district court’s summary judgment in their action challenging the denial
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
of their application under the Federal Land Policy and Management Act for an
easement for a water distribution system. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1291. We review do novo, San Luis & Delta-Mendota Water Auth. v. United
States, 672 F.3d 676, 699 (9th Cir. 2012), and we affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment because the Hansens
failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether the decision denying
their application for an easement was arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion,
or otherwise unlawful based on the factors considered, the evidence reviewed, and
the explanation provided by the agency. See id. at 699-70 (setting forth limited
and specific grounds warranting reversal of an agency’s decision under the terms
of the Administrative Procedures Act, and noting that agency’s decision should be
sustained if the agency articulated a rational connection between the facts found
and the conclusions made); see also 43 U.S.C. § 1761(c)(1) (setting forth
conditions for issuance of a permanent easement for a water conveyance system).
The Hansens’ contentions regarding the agency’s refusal to administratively
review the denial of their application, the reliability of the agency’s air photo
analysis, and the agency’s use of the word “indicate” in the denial of their
application are unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.
2 12-15206