James Saunders Grill v. Tom Quinn, in his official capacity as Acting Supervisor of the Tahoe National Forest;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JAMES SAUNDERS GRILL,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
TOM QUINN, in his official capacity as
Acting Supervisor of the Tahoe National
Forest; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 13-16955
D.C. No.
2:10-cv-00757-GEB-GGH
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Garland E. Burrell, Jr., District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted December 19, 2018**
San Francisco, California
Before: GOULD and BERZON, Circuit Judges, and BLOCK, *** District Judge.
This case involves a dispute between Plaintiff James Saunders Grill and the
United States Forest Service concerning a special use permit. The district court
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The Honorable Frederic Block, United States District Judge for the
Eastern District of New York, sitting by designation.
FILED
JAN 10 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2
granted summary judgment against Grill. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1291, and we affirm.
1. The district court did not abuse its discretion by declining to consider Grill’s
untimely assertions that he continued to own some of the relevant property. Grill
had an obligation to present facts relevant to his claims in a timely manner,
particularly where the facts were in his possession and his filings indicated that he
understood the nature of the government’s Article III argument. See United States
v. Flewitt, 874 F.2d 669, 675 (9th Cir. 1989) (pro se litigants are “subject to the
same good faith limitations imposed on lawyers, as officers of the court”).
2. We affirm the district court’s grant of summary judgment because, on the
facts presented to the district court, Grill’s request for permitting rights is no longer
a “present controversy as to which effective relief can be granted” and is therefore
moot. United States v. Able Time, Inc., 545 F.3d 824, 828 (9th Cir. 2008) (quoting
Vill. of Gambell v. Babbitt, 999 F.2d 403, 406 (9th Cir. 1993)); see also
Hollingsworth v. Perry, 570 U.S. 693, 705 (2013) (“Article III demands that an
‘actual controversy’ persist throughout all stages of litigation.”).
3. Grill argues that the district court abused its discretion by denying leave to
amend his claim to include a Bivens action. But Grill never requested leave to
amend at the district court, and he does not explain why Western Radio Services
Co. v. United States Forest Service does not bar a Bivens action in cases like this

-- 2 of 3 --

3
one, where such a claim would supplant the preexisting statutory scheme under the
Administrative Procedure Act. 578 F.3d 1116, 1122–23 (9th Cir. 2009).
AFFIRMED

-- 3 of 3 --