Eason Land Co., LLC v. U.S. Department of Interior, 703 F. App'x 498

Plaintiffs (Eason Land Co., Jesse White, Pamela White) sued the Secretary of the Interior and BLM officials seeking orders to make the BLM implement the substantive terms of a 2008 Final Decision—either by removing/retrofitting water projects or by granting trade-of-use animal unit months (AUMs) proportional to water stored in BLM reservoirs.
Claims asserted: (1) APA § 706(1) to compel agency action unlawfully withheld or unreasonably delayed; (2) Declaratory Judgment Act; (3) mandamus (28 U.S.C. § 1361).
District court dismissed: mandamus and DJA claims for lack of jurisdiction (sovereign immunity/no independent jurisdictional basis) and dismissed the § 706(1) claim for failure to state a claim.
Plaintiffs appealed to the Ninth Circuit arguing BLM failed to implement its Final Decision and seeking compulsion or AUM relief until compliance.
Ninth Circuit affirmed but held all three claims should have been dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether APA § 706(1) authorizes compelling BLM to implement the Final Decision	Whites: BLM unlawfully withheld/ delayed implementation; court should compel removal/retrofit or award AUMs	BLM: Implementation steps are not discrete, legally compelled agency actions under § 706(1)	Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction—plaintiffs did not identify a discrete, legally required agency action under SUWA standard
Whether the Declaratory Judgment Act supplies jurisdiction	Whites: DJA relief appropriate and supported by APA claim	BLM: DJA does not create independent federal jurisdiction; relies on APA claim	Dismissed—DJA claim lacks independent jurisdiction because underlying APA claim fails
Whether mandamus relief is available against BLM officers (sovereign immunity)	Whites: seek mandamus to compel action	BLM: Mandamus does not waive sovereign immunity; no clear ministerial duty required to overcome immunity	Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction—no waiver of sovereign immunity and no clear ministerial duty
Whether district court could consider extra-pleading evidence and deny leave to amend	Whites: district court relied on outside evidence and denied amendment	BLM: Such consideration was proper for jurisdictional (standing/ripeness) matters; amendment futile	Affirmed—court properly considered evidence for jurisdictional issues and denial of leave to amend was not an abuse of discretion

Norton v. S. Utah Wilderness All., 542 U.S. 55 (statutory requirement of a discrete, compelled agency action for § 706(1) relief)
San Luis Unit Food Producers v. United States, 709 F.3d 798 (implementation acts are not discrete agency actions under § 706(1))
Hells Canyon Pres. Council v. U.S. Forest Serv., 593 F.3d 923 (§ 706(1) limited to ignored specific legislative commands)
Alvarado v. Table Mountain Rancheria, 509 F.3d 1008 (jurisdictional dismissal when no discrete compelled action alleged; sovereign immunity principles)
Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v. Liberatore, 408 F.3d 1158 (Declaratory Judgment Act does not confer independent federal jurisdiction)
Mashiri v. Dep’t of Educ., 724 F.3d 1028 (mandamus does not waive United States sovereign immunity)
Tucson Airport Auth. v. Gen. Dynamics Corp., 136 F.3d 641 (acts of officers imputed to the United States for sovereign immunity analysis)
Kingman Reef Atoll Invs., L.L.C. v. United States, 541 F.3d 1189 (courts may consider evidence beyond the pleadings when resolving jurisdictional questions)
Sams v. Yahoo! Inc., 713 F.3d 1175 (documents attached to complaint and identical final versions may be considered on a Rule 12 review)
Chinatown Neighborhood Ass’n v. Harris, 794 F.3d 1136 (denial of leave to amend is proper where amendment would be futile)