Martin v. United States, 2017 WL 2224370

Plaintiffs own private parcels within Santa Fe National Forest and claim "statutorily vested" right‑of‑way easements coextensive with Sandoval County Roads 268 and 89 that provide access to their properties.
The 2011 Las Conchas Fire and subsequent flooding damaged portions of those roads; Sandoval County began repairs but the U.S. Forest Service halted work and refused repairs absent agency approval.
Forest Supervisor Maria Garcia informed landowners she would close the roads for public safety and offered two options: reconstruct the road via a private road association and obtain a recordable private road easement, or build a new route and seek a private easement—both requiring Forest Service facilitation/approval.
The Forest Service advised plaintiffs it did not recognize any vested easement interest and warned that unauthorized road use or repairs could trigger civil or criminal penalties; plaintiffs did not apply for the special use permit or pay fees.
Plaintiffs sued in the Court of Federal Claims alleging the permit requirement and associated fees amount to a Fifth Amendment taking because they effectively deprive plaintiffs of meaningful access to their property.
The Government moved to dismiss for lack of subject‑matter jurisdiction (ripeness) and for failure to state a claim (no compensable property interest); the court addressed ripeness and granted dismissal without prejudice.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Ripeness of regulatory‑taking claim	Martin et al.: Forest Service’s permit requirement and threats to prosecute amount to a taking now; no need to apply for permit	U.S.: Claim is unripe because plaintiffs have not applied for or been denied the special use permit	Held: Not ripe; regulatory‑taking claims require a final agency decision (permit sought and denied) before ripeness is met
Nature of the taking (physical vs. regulatory)	Plaintiffs: case satisfies both physical and regulatory taking tests	U.S.: The record shows no physical occupation by government	Held: Complaint alleges a regulatory taking (no factual allegation of government physical occupation)
Effect of permit requirement alone	Plaintiffs: permit/fees effectively strip access and thus are a taking	U.S.: Mere imposition of permit requirement is not a taking; owner may obtain permission or other viable uses may exist	Held: Mere permit requirement is not per se a taking; only denial that deprives economically viable use can constitute a taking
Jurisdictional disposition	Plaintiffs: Court can decide now	U.S.: Court lacks jurisdiction until claim is ripe	Held: Court lacks subject‑matter jurisdiction; complaint dismissed without prejudice

United States v. Riverside Bayview Homes, 474 U.S. 121 (1985) (mere permit requirement does not automatically effect a taking)
Howard W. Heck & Assocs., Inc. v. United States, 134 F.3d 1468 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (regulatory‑taking claim is not ripe until final agency decision on permit application)
Estate of Hage v. United States, 687 F.3d 1281 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (same; ripeness requires final application of regulation to property)
Forest Properties, Inc. v. United States, 177 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (denial of permit preventing use is a classic regulatory taking)
Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council, 505 U.S. 1003 (1992) (regulatory taking occurs when regulation deprives land of all economically viable use)
Williamson County Reg'l Planning Comm'n v. Hamilton Bank, 473 U.S. 172 (1985) (ripeness principle: final decision requirement for takings claims)
Abbott Labs. v. Gardner, 387 U.S. 136 (1967) (ripeness doctrine prevents premature adjudication)