Ken McMaster v. United States, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 19523

Background

McMaster owns the Oro Grande mining claim in the Trinity Alps Wilderness; surface rights were reserved to the United States when BLM issued the mineral patent in 2009.
McMaster filed an August 1992 patent application under the General Mining Law of 1872; BLM granted a patent for the mineral estate only, reserving the surface to the United States.
McMaster sued under the Quiet Title Act, APA, and DJA seeking fee-simple title to the surface and improvements; the district court dismissed for failure to state a claim.
The district court held QTA exclusive for title disputes, and McMaster had no valid existing right to a fee-simple patent at the filing of the patent application; McMaster failed to plead the improvements’ title with particularity.
The court analyzed whether the Solicitor’s M-36994 Opinion should govern the interpretation of “valid existing rights” under the Wilderness Act and whether deference applied to that interpretation.
The Wilderness Act and subsequent regulatory history limit patent scope in wilderness areas, influencing whether surface title can be conveyed with mineral patents.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether McMaster had a valid existing right to fee-simple title to surface and improvements	McMaster argues valid existing rights preserve surface rights for pre-wilderness claims.	United States contends valid existing rights do not entail fee-simple surface title for pre-1984 claims.	McMaster lacked a valid existing right to a fee-simple patent; surface title reserved to the United States.
Whether the Solicitor’s Opinion of M-36994 is entitled to Chevron/Skidmore deference in interpreting §1133(d)(3)	McMaster relies on Solicitor’s Opinion to support surface rights.	Government argues Solicitor’s Opinion is not entitled to Chevron deference and is persuasive but not controlling.	Solicitor’s Opinion is entitled to Skidmore deference and persuasive weight; it supports limiting surface rights.
Whether McMaster adequately pleaded ownership of the structures under QTA with particularity	McMaster asserts ownership of cabin, workshop, and outhouse as improvements.	McMaster failed to plead when/how title to the improvements passed; title could have passed to the United States if abandoned.	McMaster failed to plead with particularity; QTA claim properly dismissed.
Whether the APA and DJA claims were proper given QTA exclusivity for title disputes	McMaster’s APA/DJA claims challenge the patent decision and surface title.	QTA provides exclusive remedy for adverse title claims; APA/DJA claims are improper.	APA and DJA claims were properly dismissed as duplicative of or precluded by the QTA.

Key Cases Cited

Block v. North Dakota ex rel. Bd. of Univ. & Sch. Lands, 461 U.S. 273 (U.S. 1983) (QTA is the exclusive remedy for title disputes against the government)
Patchak, 132 S. Ct. 2199 (S. Ct. 2012) (APA may apply when QTA is not addressing the grievance)
Independence Min. Co. v. Babbitt, 105 F.3d 502 (9th Cir. 1997) (mining rights and surface rights; patenting authority retained by government)
Swanson v. Babbitt, 3 F.3d 1348 (9th Cir. 1993) (government has broad authority over public lands before patent issuance)
Alaska Miners v. Andrus, 662 F.2d 577 (9th Cir. 1981) (valid existing rights in ANCSA context; vesting considerations)
Aleknagik Natives Ltd. v. United States, 806 F.2d 924 (9th Cir. 1986) (legitimate expectations may be valid existing rights in some contexts)
Seldovia Native Ass’n, Inc. v. Lujan, 904 F.2d 1335 (9th Cir. 1990) (legitimate expectations under Alaska land statutes nuanced by context)
East Central Eureka Mining Co. v. Central Eureka Mining Co., 204 U.S. 266 (U.S. 1907) (rights under existing laws concept in mining patent context)
United States v. Locke, 471 U.S. 84 (U.S. 1985) (federal government holds title; mining rights and surface rights distinctions)
Stockley v. United States, 260 U.S. 532 (U.S. 1923) (discussion of existing rights vs. vested rights in patenting context)