Jachetta v. United States, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 15808

Jachetta, an Alaska Native, applied in 1971 for a 160-acre Native allotment comprising Parcel A (50 acres) and Parcel B (110 acres).
BLM erroneously processed the application only for Parcel A, issuing that allotment in 1986; Parcel B was omitted due to the error.
After protracted administrative proceedings, BLM issued Parcel B to Jachetta in July 2004.
Before Parcel B was allotted, the State of Alaska and Alyeska used Parcel B as a material site, removing over 700,000 cubic yards of gravel and damaging vegetation and resources.
Jachetta sued in federal court alleging inverse condemnation, injunctive relief, nuisance, breach of fiduciary duties, and civil rights violations; district court dismissed with sovereign immunity as to BLM and Alaska.
Ninth Circuit affirmed in part: federal sovereign immunity bars certain claims against the United States, but FTCA may waive immunity for some state-law nuisance and fiduciary-duty claims; Eleventh Amendment bars Alaska claims in their entirety.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does the FTCA waive sovereign immunity for Jachetta's claims against the BLM?	FTCA applies where Alaska law would make a private party liable for similar conduct.	Many claims are federal or non-tort under Alaska law; FTCA waiver does not extend to those.	FTCA waives immunity for nuisance and breach-of-fiduciary-duty claims, not for inverse condemnation, injunctive relief, or civil-rights claims.
Do 25 U.S.C. § 345, § 357, § 1343(a)(3), or § 1983/1985 provide waivers of sovereign immunity for Jachetta against the United States?	Several statutes purportedly waive immunity for original allotment, condemnation, or civil-rights liability.	Waivers are narrow and do not cover the present inverse condemnation or federal-civil-rights claims against the United States.	Only FTCA may waive sovereignty for some claims; §345, §357, §1343(a)(3), and §1983/§1985 do not create waivers for the BLM in this context.
Does the Eleventh Amendment bar Jachetta's action against Alaska for inverse condemnation and related claims?	Inverse condemnation may proceed in state court where Takings Clause remedies exist; federal forum barred.	State sovereign immunity should bar actions in federal court unless Congress clearly abrogates or state waives immunity.	Eleventh Amendment bars Jachetta's action against Alaska in its entirety.

United States v. Mitchell, 463 U.S. 206 (1983) (sovereign immunity requires express waiver)
United States v. White Mountain Apache Tribe, 537 U.S. 465 (2003) (clear statement of waiver required)
Lane v. Pena, 518 U.S. 187 (1996) (text must show unequivocal waiver)
United States v. Park Place Assocs., Ltd., 563 F.3d 907 (9th Cir. 2009) (relationship between immunity and jurisdiction)
Bolt v. United States, 509 F.3d 1028 (9th Cir. 2007) (FTCA requires Alaska-law tort analogue for waiver)
Love v. United States, 60 F.3d 642 (9th Cir. 1995) (FTCA doesn't cover constitutional torts)
FDIC v. Meyer, 510 U.S. 471 (1994) (constitutional tort claims not within FTCA)
Delta Sav. Bank v. United States, 265 F.3d 1017 (9th Cir. 2001) (FTCA limits to state-law torts under local law)
Lhotka v. United States, 114 F.3d 751 (8th Cir. 1997) (nuisance under state law can be FTCA action)
Bartleson v. United States, 96 F.3d 1270 (9th Cir. 1996) (private nuisance actionable under FTCA in some contexts)
Clarke, 445 U.S. 253 (1980) (§ 357 waivers limited to formal condemnations)
Minnesota v. United States, 305 U.S. 382 (1939) (condemnation context and United States ownership in trust)
Taylor v. Westly, 402 F.3d 924 (9th Cir. 2005) (clear-statement requirement for abrogation of state immunity)
Shields v. Cape Fox Corp., 42 P.3d 1089 (Alaska 2002) (three sources of fiduciary duties under Alaska law)