865 F2d 265 United States v. F Lonneker
865 F.2d 265
Unpublished Disposition
NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel.
UNITED STATES of America; the Federal Land Bank of Spokane,
Plaintiffs- Appellees
v.
Robert F. LONNEKER, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 87-4125.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted* Nov. 15, 1988.
Decided Dec. 23, 1988.
Before CHOY, TANG and O'SCANNLAIN, Circuit Judges.
MEMORANDUM**
Robert F. Lonneker (Lonneker) appeals pro se1 the district court's judgment of foreclosure against him and in favor of the United States Small Business Administration and The Federal Land Bank of Spokane (the Bank), both of which were seeking to collect on loans they had extended to Lonneker and Lonneker Farms, Inc. We affirm.
Lonneker contends that the district court's judgment should be reversed because the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction. Lonneker filed a document with the Walla Walla County Auditor which he maintains released his Congressman from representing his property and property rights under the Constitution. He claims by filing this document he had abandoned those property rights, thereby nullifying the district court's jurisdiction. This contention is absurd.
Article III of the United States Constitution provides that the federal courts have jurisdiction over cases in which the United States is a party. U.S. Const. Art. III, Sec. 2. Article III also gives Congress the authority to establish federal district courts. U.S. Const. Art. III, Sec. 1. In 1948, Congress exercised this power by creating the district courts, and giving them original jurisdiction over civil actions commenced by the United States or any agency. 28 U.S.C. Secs. 132, 1345. There is no provision in either of these statutes by which a party may release the district court of subject matter jurisdiction. Because this action was commenced by the United States Small Business Administration, the district court had subject matter jurisdiction. See id.
The Bank seeks attorney's fees and costs incurred in defending this appeal pursuant to provisions of the promissory notes and mortgages, which it asserts support an award of attorney fees and costs on appeal. But the documents containing the provisions on which the Bank relies for its request for attorney's fees and costs are not part of the record of this appeal.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. Fed.R.Civ.P. 34(a) and Ninth Circuit Rule 34-4
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir.R. 36-3
Although the judgment in the district court was against Lonneker Farms, Inc., Robert F. Lonneker and his wife Arleen Lonneker, only Robert F. Lonneker appeals that judgment