
    PRESERVATION OF LOS OLIVOS and Preservation of Santa Ynez, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR; et al. Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 15-55486
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted January 12, 2017  Pasadena, California
    Filed January 17, 2017
    
      Kenneth Robert Williams, Esquire, Kenneth R. Williams—Attorney, Sacramento, CA, for Plaintiffs-Appellants
    Judith Rabinowitz, U.S. Department of Justice, San Francisco, CA, Brian C. Toth, Attorney, DOJ—U.S. Department of Justice, Environment & Natural Resources Division, Washington, DC, for Defendants-Appellees United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Clay Gregory, Interior Board of Indian Appeals, Dirk Kempthorne
    Nancie Gail Marzulla, Roger J. Marzul-la, Esquire, Attorney, Marzulla Law, LLC, Washington, DC, Brenda L. Tomaras, To-maras & Ogas, San Diego, CA, Richard Irwin Wideman, Esquire, Attorney, Richard I. Wideman, Attorney at Law, Santa Ynez, CA, for Defendant-Appellee Santa Ynez Band of Mission Indians
    Before: KOZINSKI, McKEOWN, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

The district court correctly denied plaintiffs’ request to reopen this case. Plaintiffs, initially challenged a 2006 decision of the Interior Board of Indian Appeals (IBIA). The district court vacated that decision and remanded the case to the IBIA, which issued a superseding decision in 2014. Plaintiffs may attempt to challenge the IBIA’s 2014 decision by filing a new action in the district court, but they may not do so, as they have attempted to do here, by “reopening” an earlier action that had already concluded.

Contrary to plaintiffs’ contentions, their initial 2006 action did not remain pending in the district court after 2008. The district court’s decision of July 9, 2008, which granted in part and denied in part plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment, was a final judgment. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 58(c)(2)(B) (stating that a judgment is entered after 150 days even if no separate document is filed). The court’s decision resolved all of the claims raised in plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment and remanded the case to the IBIA. A district court generally does not retain jurisdiction after an action is remanded to an agency. Zheng v. Ashcroft, 383 F.3d 919, 921 n.2 (9th Cir. 2004) (per curiam). Additionally, plaintiffs treated the decision as a final judgment by seeking attorney’s fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act. See Casey v. Albertson’s Inc., 362 F.3d 1254, 1259 (9th Cir. 2004).

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
     