FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

LARRY STEVEN WILKINS; JANE No. 20-35745 B. STANTON, D.C. No. 9:18-cv- Plaintiffs-Appellants, 00147-DLC

v. ORDER UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Defendant-Appellee.

On Remand from the United States Supreme Court

Filed May 8, 2023

Before: EBEL, * BRESS, and VANDYKE, Circuit Judges.

* The Honorable David M. Ebel, United States Circuit Judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, sitting by designation. 2 WILKINS V. UNITED STATES

SUMMARY **

Quiet Title Act

On remand from the U.S. Supreme Court in Wilkins v. United States, 143 S. Ct. 870, 871 (2023) (holding that the Quiet Title Act’s 12-year time limitation, 28 U.S.C. § 2409a(g), is a non-jurisdictional claims-processing rule, and reversing a decision of the Ninth Circuit, published at 13 F.4th 791 (9th Cir. 2021)), the panel remanded to the district court for further proceedings consistent with the Supreme Court’s decision.

COUNSEL

Jeffrey W. McCoy (argued), Pacific Legal Foundation, Highlands Ranch, Colorado; Damien M. Schiff and Ethan Blevins, Pacific Legal Foundation, Sacramento, California; James M. Manley, Pacific Legal Foundation, Phoenix, Arizona; for Plaintiffs-Appellants. Kevin W. McArdle (argued), Mark Steger Smith, John M. Newman, and John L. Smeltzer, Attorneys; Jean E. Williams, Acting Assistant Attorney General; Environment and Natural Resources Division, United States Department of Justice; Washington, D.C.; Babak Rastgoufard, Attorney; Office of the General Counsel, United States Department of Agriculture; Washington, D.C.; for Defendant-Appellee.

** This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court. It has been prepared by court staff for the convenience of the reader. WILKINS V. UNITED STATES 3

ORDER

The United States Supreme Court reversed the judgment in this case and remanded the case to this court for further proceedings. See Wilkins v. United States, 143 S. Ct. 870, 881 (2023). We remand this case to the district court for further proceedings consistent with the Supreme Court’s decision. The copy of this order shall act as and for the mandate of this court. REMANDED.