Carey Mills v. United States, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 1821

Background

Carey Mills owns interests in two state mining claims that are most practicably accessed via the Fortymile Station–Eagle Trail, an alleged R.S. 2477 route crossing federal and nonfederal lands.
Alaska statutorily claims R.S. 2477 rights-of-way (including the Fortymile Trail); R.S. 2477 was repealed in 1976 but preserved existing rights-of-way.
The Trail crosses: (1) federal land subject to Scott Wood’s unpatented mining claims (United States retains legal title; Wood has possessory mineral rights), and (2) lands patented in 2008 to Alaska Native Corporations Doyon Limited and Hungwitchin Corporation.
Mills applied to BLM/BIA for a right-of-way or reservations; administrative requests were denied for lack of authority and not appealed. Mills then sued the United States, Wood, Doyon, and Hungwitchin seeking a declaration that he has a right-of-way (R.S. 2477 and easement by necessity/implication) to access his claims.
The district court dismissed Mills’s claims: (a) claims against the United States under the Quiet Title Act (QTA)/sovereign immunity grounds, and (b) certain claims against Doyon and Hungwitchin for lack of prudential standing; it also dismissed a claim under 30 U.S.C. § 41. Mills appealed pro se.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether sovereign immunity bars Mills’s claim against the United States for a right-of-way absent QTA jurisdiction	Mills seeks declaration that he may use the Fortymile R.S. 2477 route to access his claims; QTA or other waiver applies	United States: QTA applies only if the United States disputes title; here gov’t has not asserted contrary title so sovereign immunity bars suit	Held: Dismissal affirmed — no QTA waiver because the U.S. does not presently dispute the R.S. 2477 right-of-way; sovereign immunity bars the claim against the U.S.
Whether prudential standing bars Mills from suing private patentees (Doyon, Hungwitchin, Wood) to obtain access over an alleged R.S. 2477 route	Mills asserts his own individualized property interest (easement by necessity/implication) to access his landlocked claims	Defendants argue Mills is asserting rights of the State/public (Alaska) and lacks prudential standing to assert third‑party/state rights	Held: Reversed — prudential standing does not bar a landowner’s suit to establish access to his own property over an R.S. 2477 route; Mills may proceed against nonfederal defendants
Whether 30 U.S.C. § 41 (right-of-way for intersecting veins) supports Mills’s claim against Wood	Mills invoked § 41 to claim a right-of-way across Wood’s unpatented claims	Defendants: § 41 applies only to intersecting underground veins and priority-of-title disputes, not surface access to separate claims	Held: Affirmed — § 41 inapplicable because complaint alleges no intersecting veins or priority dispute
Whether the action must be brought as a QTA quiet-title action to affect nonfederal possessors	Mills contends a declaration against private holders is sufficient to protect him from trespass suits	Defendants contend relief implicates federal title and thus QTA is required	Held: Court explains a declaration against private possessors (Wood, Doyon, Hungwitchin) is permissible if it does not bind the United States; thus QTA not required for those nonfederal defendants

Key Cases Cited

Lyon v. Gila River Indian Cmty., 626 F.3d 1059 (9th Cir. 2010) (landowner/trustee may seek access via R.S. 2477 road to reach property; Article III standing exists)
Wilderness Soc’y v. Morton, 479 F.2d 842 (D.C. Cir. 1973) (R.S. 2477 grants free rights-of-way accepted by states)
Best v. Humboldt Placer Mining Co., 371 U.S. 334 (1963) (United States holds legal title to public mining lands)
United States v. Locke, 471 U.S. 84 (1985) (unpatented mining claim grants possessory/extractive rights but not fee title)
McMaster v. United States, 731 F.3d 881 (9th Cir. 2013) (QTA covers adverse claims to U.S. interests including rights-of-way)
Alaska v. Babbitt, 38 F.3d 1068 (9th Cir. 1994) (collecting cases on rights-of-way and QTA jurisdiction)
Match-E-Be-Nash-She-Wish Band v. Patchak, 132 S. Ct. 2199 (2012) (QTA is the exclusive means to adjudicate disputed federal real‑property title)
Adams v. United States, 3 F.3d 1254 (9th Cir. 1993) (landowner R.S. 2477 access claim analyzed; Forest Service regulations may limit use)
Wagner v. Director, FEMA, 847 F.2d 515 (9th Cir. 1988) (unauthorized representations by federal employees do not bind the government)
Kowalski v. Tesmer, 543 U.S. 125 (2004) (third‑party standing requires close relationship and hindrance to rights holder)