United States Court of Appeals
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
Argued December 7, 2007 Decided February 5, 2008
No. 06-5294
ROLE MODELS AMERICA, INC.,
APPELLANT
v.
PETE GEREN,
SECRETARY OF THE ARMY AND
MARGARET SPELLINGS, SECRETARY OF EDUCATION,
APPELLEES
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Columbia
(No. 01cv01595)
Gary M. Hnath argued the cause and filed the briefs for
appellant.
Brian C. Baldrate, Special Assistant U.S. Attorney, argued
the cause for appellees. With him on the brief were Jeffrey A.
Taylor, U.S. Attorney, and R. Craig Lawrence, Assistant U.S.
Attorney. Kevin K. Robitaille, Assistant U.S. Attorney, entered
an appearance.
2
Before: RANDOLPH, GRIFFITH and KAVANAUGH, Circuit
Judges.
Opinion for the Court filed by Circuit Judge RANDOLPH.
RANDOLPH, Circuit Judge: Role Models America, Inc.
brought suit under the Defense Base Closure and Realignment
Act of 1990, 104 Stat. 1808 (codified as amended at 10 U.S.C.
§ 2687 note),1 the National Historic Preservation Act, 16 U.S.C.
§ 470 et seq., and the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C.
§ 702 et seq., to enjoin the Secretary of the Army from
conveying Fort Ritchie, a former military base, to PenMar
Development Corporation of Maryland. The district court
dismissed Role Models’ claims for lack of standing. We affirm,
but on different grounds with respect to the Base Closure Act.
I.
The Base Closure Act outlines a procedure for closing and
realigning military bases within the United States. Base Closure
Act § 2901(b). Unless the Secretary of Defense determines that
another federal agency or department can use the military
installation chosen for closure, the Secretary must publish notice
that the surplus property exists. Base Closure Act
§ 2905(b)(5)(A), (b)(7)(B)(i)(IV). Within thirty days of the
notice’s publication, the local redevelopment authority, an entity
established by state or local government and recognized by the
Secretary of Defense, must publish a notice stating the period
within which it will entertain statements of interest from
“representatives of the homeless and other interested parties.”
24 C.F.R. § 586.20(c)(1); 32 C.F.R. § 176.20(c)(1). After the
notice is published, the homeless provider and “other interested
party” applications are reviewed separately. Base Closure Act
1
All following citations to the Base Closure Act are to the Act as it
appears in note following 10 U.S.C. § 2687.
3
§ 2905(b)(7)(K)(v), (b)(7)(F). The Secretary of Defense
determines if any “other interested parties” are eligible for a
public benefit conveyance, Base Closure Act
§ 2905(b)(7)(K)(v), while the redevelopment authority reviews
the homeless provider submissions. Base Closure Act
§ 2905(b)(7)(F). The redevelopment authority may then submit
its own redevelopment plan to the Secretary of Housing and
Urban Development for approval. Base Closure Act
§ 2905(b)(7)(F).
Fort Ritchie is a former United States Army base located in
western Maryland and is home to the Camp Ritchie Historic
District, a National Register-eligible historic district. The fort
was selected for closure in 1995. See Notice of Recommended
Base Closures and Realignments, 60 Fed. Reg. 11,414, 11,436
(Mar. 1, 1995) (Secretary of Defense recommending closure of
the base); President’s Message to Congress Transmitting
Recommendations of the Defense Base Closure and
Realignment Commission, H.R. Doc. No. 104-96, at 1 (1995)
(President accepting recommendation). In response, the
Maryland General Assembly created PenMar to serve as the
redevelopment authority responsible for developing the Fort
Ritchie property.
Role Models is a non-profit Maryland corporation seeking
to use the Fort Ritchie property as an educational institution for
out-of-school youth. Role Models first brought suit against the
Secretary of the Army and the Secretary of Education to enjoin
the conveyance of Fort Ritchie from the Army to PenMar in July
2001. Role Models Am., Inc. v. White, 193 F. Supp. 2d 76, 77
(D.D.C. 2002) (“Role Models I”). Role Models failed to acquire
the Fort Ritchie property through the application process, and
alleged that the defendants violated Base Closure Act
notification and screening procedures and the APA. Id. at 79.
4
The district court denied Role Models’ motions for a temporary
restraining order and a preliminary injunction. Id. at 77.
On appeal, this court held that the defendants had not given
proper notice with respect to the Fort Ritchie property. Role
Models Am., Inc. v. White, 317 F.3d 327, 333 (D.C. Cir. 2003)
(“Role Models II”). The court stated that it “cannot imagine
how Role Models, an organization devoted to establishing
schools for at-risk minors, could possibly have interpreted a
notice entitled ‘Homeless Assistance Outreach Initiative’ as an
invitation to apply for the Fort Ritchie property,” and concluded
that the notice was insufficient notification for “other interested
parties” as the law requires. Id. at 332. The court remanded the
case, directing the district court to issue a permanent injunction
against the conveyance until the defendants remedied the
procedural error. Id. at 333-34. To comply with this order, the
defendants published a notice in October 2003 for “other
interested parties” to consider applying for the Fort Ritchie
property. Role Models then applied for a no-cost public benefit
conveyance. The Department of Education denied the
application.
In October 2004, the defendants claimed that they had
remedied the procedural error and moved to dismiss the
complaint. The district court denied their motion because the
Department of Housing and Urban Development approved
PenMar’s redevelopment plan before the remedial screening was
complete. In order to remedy that procedural error, PenMar then
sent HUD a revised proposal and HUD accepted it.
In November 2005, defendants again moved to dismiss.
Before the district court ruled on the motion to dismiss, Role
Models amended its complaint to claim, inter alia, that it is a
homeless provider and that the defendants violated the Base
Closure Act by failing simultaneously to screen for homeless
5
providers when issuing the remedial notices for “other interested
parties” in 2003. In addition, Role Models included the
allegation that the defendants’ conveyance of Fort Ritchie
violated the Preservation Act because it failed to take into
account the impact of the transfer on historic properties. In
2006, the district court granted the defendants’ motion to
dismiss, holding that Role Models’ claims were barred by this
court’s rulings and that Role Models lacked standing to bring its
APA, Base Closure Act, and Preservation Act claims.
II.
Role Models claims that the defendants violated the Base
Closure Act by failing to re-screen for homeless providers when,
on remand, they screened for “other interested parties.” The
district court held that Role Models lacked standing to bring this
claim because it was not a homeless provider.
Whether Role Models is a homeless provider under the
Base Closure Act, see 24 C.F.R. § 586.5, seems to us beside the
point. In our earlier opinion, we noted that Role Models filed
suit “[c]laiming that it was entitled to a public benefit
conveyance screening regarding the Fort Ritchie property”
because the defendants did not screen for “other interested
parties.” Role Models II, 317 F.3d at 331. We explained, “[i]f
the Secretary of Defense determines that an ‘other interested’
applicant meets the eligibility standards . . . the Secretary effects
a ‘public benefit conveyance’ of the requested property to that
party,” id. at 329, and concluded that the failure to publish
notice for other interested parties “prevented Role Models from
triggering a public benefit conveyance screening.” Id. at 333.
Our opinion made clear that we were remanding only for the re-
screening of other interested parties.
6
The district court had no “power or authority to deviate
from the mandate” this court issued in Role Models II. Briggs
v. Pa. R.R. Co., 334 U.S. 304, 306 (1948). The mandate rule is
a “‘more powerful version’ of the law-of-the-case doctrine,
which prevents courts from reconsidering issues that have
already been decided in the same case.” Indep. Petroleum Ass’n
of Am. v. Babbitt, 235 F.3d 588, 597 (D.C. Cir. 2001). In light
of our earlier decision, Role Models cannot receive a re-
screening for homeless providers because the district court had
no authority to issue such a remedy.
III.
Role Models claims the defendants violated the Historic
Preservation Act by failing to consider the effects of the
property transfer on the Fort Ritchie historic district. 16 U.S.C.
§ 470f. The district court held that Role Models is not within
the zone of interests protected by the Preservation Act and
therefore lacked prudential standing to bring this claim. See
Allen v. Wright, 468 U.S. 737, 751 (1984). This strikes us as
correct.
The Preservation Act was enacted to “encourage the public
and private preservation and utilization of all usable elements of
the Nation’s historic built environment.” 16 U.S.C. § 470-1(5).
Role Models does not allege that the purpose of its organization
is related to preserving historic sites like Fort Ritchie. Role
Models seeks to acquire Fort Ritchie to use it as an educational
facility for at-risk youth. The Preservation Act does not protect
Role Models’ right to acquire property for its own use when the
use is unrelated to the Preservation Act’s purpose. Ass’n of
Data Processing Serv. Org. v. Camp, 397 U.S. 150, 153 (1970);
Rosebud Sioux Tribe v. McDivitt, 286 F.3d 1031, 1039 (8th Cir.
2002) ; Presidio Golf Club v. Nat’l Park Serv., 155 F.3d 1153,
7
1157-58 (9th Cir. 1998). It follows that Role Models lacked
prudential standing to pursue this claim.2
Affirmed.
2
The plaintiff’s brief contains several additional arguments that do not
merit discussion. We have considered these arguments and have
rejected them.