Hueter v. AST Telecomm LLC, 1:21-cv-00377

Plaintiffs are stewards of the Alega Marine Preserve in American Samoa and allege telecommunications debris was deposited there, harming endangered hawksbill and green sea turtles.
Defendants are two groups: (a) private "polluting Defendants" (telecom companies and local utilities) and (b) "enforcing Defendants" (federal agencies/officials and American Samoa government officials/ASEPA). Plaintiffs also named James L. McGuire and Chief Justice Lealaialoa Fritz Michael Kruse.
Plaintiffs seek to compel enforcement of federal environmental statutes (primarily the Endangered Species Act and the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act, and related statutes) against the enforcing Defendants.
Federal and ASG Defendants moved to dismiss; the polluting Defendants’ claims remain pending and are in settlement discussions; Plaintiffs agreed to dismiss McGuire and Justice Kruse.
The court held that neither the Federal Defendants nor the ASG Defendants have mandatory duties that can be judicially compelled under the cited statutes and dismissed those Defendants for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
The dismissals (including McGuire and Justice Kruse) were entered without leave to amend; the court expressed no view on claims against the remaining (polluting) Defendants.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether federal officers can be compelled to enforce ESA/MPRSA	Plaintiffs seek an order compelling federal agencies/officials to enforce ESA and MPRSA against polluters	Enforcement decisions are discretionary and not subject to judicial compulsion	Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction; enforcement decisions are committed to agency discretion (Heckler/Bennett)
Whether American Samoa Government can be compelled to enforce federal statutes	Plaintiffs seek to compel ASG/ASEPA to enforce federal environmental laws at Alega	ASG lacks statutory authority/duty to enforce ESA or MPRSA; no cause of action to compel such enforcement	Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction; ASG has no enforcement duty under the cited federal statutes
Proper standard and scope of Rule 12(b)(1) facial attack	Plaintiffs contend allegations suffice to invoke federal jurisdiction	Defendants contend allegations are insufficient on their face to establish jurisdiction	Court applied facial 12(b)(1) standard (accepting allegations) and found claims so insubstantial/foreclosed that jurisdiction is lacking
Whether pro se plaintiffs should be given leave to amend	Plaintiffs (pro se) generally entitled to liberal amendment opportunity	Defendants argue prior similar litigation and futility; amendment would be futile	Dismissal entered without leave to amend because amendment would be futile given settled legal principles and prior related rulings

Heckler v. Chaney, 470 U.S. 821 (1985) (agency decision not to prosecute or enforce is presumptively unreviewable)
Bennett v. Spear, 520 U.S. 154 (1997) (limits on citizen suits and on compelling federal officers to act)
Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env't, 523 U.S. 83 (1998) (jurisdictional dismissal standards)
City & County of San Francisco v. U.S. Dep't of Transp., 796 F.3d 993 (9th Cir. 2015) (agency nonenforcement is like prosecutorial discretion)
Safe Air for Everyone v. Meyer, 373 F.3d 1035 (9th Cir. 2004) (distinguishing facial and factual 12(b)(1) attacks)
Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89 (2007) (pro se complaints are liberally construed)
Leadsinger, Inc. v. BMG Music Publ'g, 512 F.3d 522 (9th Cir. 2008) (leave to amend may be denied for futility)
Scholastic Ent., Inc. v. Fox Ent. Grp., Inc., 336 F.3d 982 (9th Cir. 2003) (courts may dismiss sua sponte for lack of jurisdiction)