In this case plaintiff alleges that the Government has taken his property interest in 31 unрatented mining lode claims and 5 unpatented millsite claims without paying just compеnsation. Defendant has moved for partial summary judgment, asking us to dismiss plaintiffs claims regаrding 26 of the unpatented mining lode claims and all of the unpatented millsite claims on the ground that as to them he has failed to state a claim upon which relief сan be granted. Plaintiff opposes the motion. We hold for the Government.
The fеderal mining laws permit citizens to explore, discover, and extract valuable minerals from the public domain and to obtain title to lands containing such discovеries. See 30 U.S.C. § 22 et seq. (1976). In order to invest the locator with a right to possession, the land
Plaintiffs theory of a Fifth Amendment taking is dependent оn a determination that he had a compensable property interest in the 31 unpatented mining lode claims and the 5 unpatented millsite claims he alleges wеre taken by the Government. Of the 31 mining lode claims, however, 26 have been declаred null and void by the Interior Department. All five of the millsite claims have likewise beеn declared void. Plaintiff had the opportunity to participate in a heаring before the agency and to appeal the adverse decisions of the administrative law judge to the Interior Board of Land Appeals. We do not hаve the jurisdiction to review these administrative determinations. Patterson v. United States,
Plaintiffs argument that we should exercise some type of ancillary jurisdictiоn to review the Interior Department determinations reveals a misapprehension about the basis of the Government’s motion. This court does not lack general jurisdiction to determine whether a mining claim was taken by the Government without the рayment of just compensation. Thus, we have general jurisdiction over all the еssential elements of plaintiffs claim. We do not, however, have the particular power to overturn the Interior Department’s conclusion that 26 of the mining lode claims allegedly owned by plaintiff and all of the millsite claims do not qualify as "claims” under 30 U.S.C. § 22 et seq. (1976), nor can we ignore such an administrative
Accordingly, it is ordered, upon consideration' of the submissions of the parties, but without oral argument, that defendant’s motion for partial summary judgment is granted. Those parts of plaintiffs petition that relate to the claims noted in the margin
Notes
Plaintiff did seek review of most of the adversе administrative determinations in the United States District Court for the District of Idaho, but later dismissed that suit voluntarily. He now says he dismissed the Idaho action on inadequate legal аdvice in order to centralize all proceedings in this court. Even if that be so, this court has no power to substitute itself for the District Court or to correct plaintiffs mistаke.
Millsite claims designated URA, W03. Pole A, Pole B, and Pole C. Mining lode claims designated as Pole No. 3, Pole No. 4, Pole No. 5, Pole No. 6, Pole No. 7, Pole No. 8, Pole No. 9, Pole No. 10, Pole No. 11, Pole No. 12, Pole No. 13, Pole No. 14, Pole No. 15, Pole No. 16, Pole No. 18, Pole No. 21, Pole No. 31, URA No. 2, URA No. 4, URA No. 5, URA No. 9, URA No. 10, URA No. 11, URA No. 13, URA No. 14, and SHE.