816 F.3d 580
9th Cir.2016Background
- Agnes Purdy (160 acres) and Anne Purdy (40 acres) received Alaska Native allotments under the Alaska Native Allotment Act; allotment certificates include a restraint on alienation maintained by the United States.
- The State of Alaska sued to quiet title, obtain declaratory relief, and condemn portions of four public trails (Chicken–Franklin, Chicken Ridge, Chicken Ridge Alternative, Myers Fork Spur) that cross the Purdys’ parcels, alleging R.S. 2477 grants based on historic public use predating the allotments.
- R.S. 2477 (repealed in 1976) created self-executing rights-of-way over public lands; under Alaska law acceptance can be demonstrated by public use, but the required quantum of use is fact-specific.
- The State named the United States as a defendant because the United States holds an interest in the allotments (the alienation restraint), making the United States an indispensable party for title and condemnation claims.
- The district court dismissed the State’s quiet title and declaratory claims for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under the QTA’s Indian-lands exception, and dismissed the condemnation claim; the Ninth Circuit affirmed the dismissals in part, vacated the condemnation dismissal, and remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court had jurisdiction to adjudicate State's quiet title claim to R.S. 2477 rights-of-way | State: QTA permits suit against U.S. to quiet title; rights-of-way vested in State by longpublic use | U.S./Purdys: Allotments are restricted Indian lands; QTA’s Indian-lands exception bars suit because U.S. has a colorable claim | Held: Dismissed — Indian-lands exception applies because U.S. has a colorable claim that allotments are restricted, so QTA waiver does not apply |
| Whether the Declaratory Judgment Act can be used to obtain same relief as quiet title against the U.S. | State: §2201 allows declaratory relief to determine rights in land | U.S./Purdys: Declaratory claim is an attempt to circumvent QTA and sovereign immunity | Held: Dismissed — declaratory claim cannot be used to evade QTA’s limited waiver |
| Whether the State can condemn allotments under 25 U.S.C. §357 without U.S. consent | State: §357 authorizes condemnation of individual allotments; U.S. was named and §357 waives immunity for such condemnations | Purdys: Condemnation requires express U.S. consent because of the federal interest in restricted allotments | Held: Reversed dismissal — §357 authorizes condemnation and waives sovereign immunity; express U.S. consent not required for individual allotments |
| Whether State may plead a "confirm-and-condemn" claim (litigate title then condemn only remainder) | State: May confirm extent of preexisting rights and then condemn remaining portions | Purdys/U.S.: That would circumvent QTA/sovereign immunity by litigating title via condemnation | Held: Not allowed as pleaded — State cannot litigate title (QTA barred) via condemnation; may amend to assert a straight condemnation claim if it intends to take entire claimed interests and pay just compensation |
Key Cases Cited
- Lyon v. Gila River Indian Community, 626 F.3d 1059 (9th Cir. 2010) (R.S. 2477 rights preserved as of repeal date)
- Block v. North Dakota, 461 U.S. 273 (1983) (QTA provides exclusive means to challenge U.S. title to real property)
- Mills v. United States, 742 F.3d 400 (9th Cir. 2014) (QTA governs challenges to less-than-fee interests)
- State of Alaska v. Babbitt (Bryant), 182 F.3d 672 (9th Cir. 1999) (preexisting federal grant defeats subsequent allotment; no colorable U.S. claim)
- Minnesota v. United States, 305 U.S. 382 (1939) (United States is indispensable party when its property interest is at issue)
- United States v. Mottaz, 476 U.S. 834 (1986) (QTA Indian-lands exception preserves sovereign immunity for trust or restricted Indian lands)