Juanita Steele v. Cecelia Hernandez

MEMORANDUM

In these consolidated appeals, Cecelia Hernandez and Marvin Hilpert appeal pro se from final orders of the district court in Juanita Steele’s action seeking to eject them from restricted Indian lands. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We affirm.

In No. 08-17211, to the extent Hernandez challenges the validity of the settlement agreement she entered with Steele, we lack jurisdiction to consider those challenges because Hernandez failed to file a timely appeal from the judgment approving the settlement. See Fed. R.App. P. 4 (setting forth the time for appeal); Stephanie-Cardona LLC v. Smith’s Food & Drug Ctrs., Inc., 476 F.3d 701, 703 (9th Cir.2007) (“A timely notice of appeal is a non-waiva-ble jurisdictional requirement.”). The district court did not err by enforcing the judgment because Hernandez had failed to comply with it.

In No. 08-17219, the district court properly granted summary adjudication because, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Hilpert, there are no genuine issues of material fact regarding his interest in the land. See Fontana v. Haskin, 262 F.3d 871, 876 (9th Cir.2001) (reviewing de novo a grant of summary adjudication…