Fred R. Stewart, Et Ux. And v. The United States of America

Good Law
620 F.2d 740·29 Fed. R. Serv. 2d 1036·1980 U.S. App. LEXIS 16976
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitJune 4, 198078-1878California519 words

Opinion

Opinion

In 1974, when Congress enacted legislation establishing the Sawtooth National Recreation Area, 16 U.S.C. § 460aa, et seq., (the Act), it provided a six-month statute of limitations for facial challenges to administrative regulations implementing the Act. Appellants made a timely filing, challenging the constitutionality both of the Act and of regulations adopted by the Interior Department pursuant to the statutory authority. After appellants amended their complaint once, a three-judge district court dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction on June 25, 1976. By its terms, however, the dismissal order only adjudicated the issue of the constitutionality of the Act and did not consider the separate question of the constitutionality of the regulations. The order specified that it was “without prejudice to the right of amendment.”

One of the original plaintiffs, Phyllis Stewart, attempted to cure the jurisdictional defects by individually filing a second-amended complaint essentially alleging the same cause of action. On August 23, 1976, the three-judge district court issued an order denying her motion to file an amended complaint and making the June 25, 1976 order of…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.