Ken McMASTER; Maureen E. Galitz; Steven E. Fawl, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. UNITED STATES of America; Bureau of Land Management; United States Forest Service; Kenneth Lee Salazar, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 11-17489.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Sept. 24, 2013.
731 F.3d 881
IV.
Having determined that Graves’ appointed counsel followed the proper procedure under Rule 4-1(c)(6), we turn to the merits in this case. Our review of the briefing and the record discloses that the certified issues provide no basis for appellate relief, and we decline to expand the COA to cover the uncertified issues identified in the Anders brief.4
V.
Accordingly, we AFFIRM the district court‘s judgment and GRANT the motion of Kathleen C. Page to withdraw as counsel of record for Graves.
MOTION GRANTED, JUDGMENT AFFIRMED.
Robert G. Dreher, Acting Assistant Attorney General; Mark Haag and Katherine J. Barton (argued), United States Department of Justice, Environment & Natural Resources Division, Appellate Section, Washington, D.C., for Defendants-Appellees.
Before: A. WALLACE TASHIMA and JAY S. BYBEE, Circuit Judges, and KIMBA M. WOOD, Senior District Judge.*
OPINION
BYBEE, Circuit Judge:
McMaster owns the Oro Grande mining claim, located in the Trinity Alps Wilderness area. In 1992, McMaster filed an application for a patent, having satisfied all of the requirements for receiving a patent under the General Mining Law of 1872. However, the Bureau of Land Management (“BLM“) granted McMaster a patent to only the mineral estate; the surface estate was reserved to the United States. McMaster brought suit under the Quiet Title Act (“QTA“), Administrative Procedure Act (“APA“), and Declaratory Judgment Act (“DJA“), seeking to quiet fee-simple title to the Oro Grande mining claim and its improvements. The district court dismissed all of McMaster‘s claims under
We affirm the district court‘s decision. We agree that the QTA is the exclusive means for McMaster to bring suit, and thus hold that the district court properly dismissed McMaster‘s APA and DJA claims. With regard to McMaster‘s QTA claims, we hold that McMaster did not have a “valid existing right” to a fee-simple patent when he filed his patent application, and that McMaster failed to plead with particularity the circumstances under which title to the improvements was acquired.
I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Ken McMaster, Maureen E. Galitz, and Steven E. Fawl (collectively referred to as “McMaster“) own the Oro Grande mining claim. The Oro Grande “is an approximate[ly] 20-acre placer mining claim located approximately 45 miles northwest of Redding, California, along the South Fork Salmon River in the Trinity Alps Wilderness.” The claim was originally located in 1934, pursuant to the General Mining Law of 1872.
In 1934, McMaster‘s predecessors-in-interest purchased the Oro Grande—former-
McMaster actively mines the Oro Grande mining claim when conditions permit—“when the South Fork Salmon River level is low enough ... and when access to the site is possible“—in compliance with state and federal law. There are now three structures on the Oro Grande mining claim, which are used in furtherance of mining operations: a cabin, a workshop, and an outhouse. The cabin was built in the early 1890s and is constructed of split logs and shakes. McMaster uses the workshop to process samples during the mining process and to store mining equipment during the seasons in which he is unable to mine.
On August 14, 1992, McMaster filed an application to patent the Oro Grande mining claim. On August 16, 1993, the BLM State Director for California certified that McMaster had fully complied with the requirements of the 1872 Mining Law and was entitled to the First Half Mineral Entry Final Certificate (“FHMEFC“), “confirming that mineral entry was allowed and occurred upon the date of acceptance of the purchase price.” The FHMEFC was issued by the Secretary of the Interior on December 1, 1994.
On August 4, 2000, the BLM issued a mineral report for the Oro Grande mining claim, concluding, inter alia, “[t]hat a discovery of a valuable mineral deposit of gold was made on the Oro Grande mining claim at the time it was located in 1953.” An early draft of the 2000 mineral report recommended that the Oro Grande surface estate be patented along with the mineral estate, but this recommendation was ultimately revised based on an opinion issued on May 22, 1998 by the Solicitor of the Department of the Interior. See Solicitor‘s Opinion M-36994, Patenting of Mining Claims and Mill Sites in Wilderness Areas (May 22, 1998) (“Solicitor‘s Opinion“). A second mineral report for the Oro Grande mining claim was issued on April 10, 2006, and likewise concluded that there was a discovery of a valuable mineral deposit and relied on the Solicitor‘s Opinion to recommend that only the mineral estate be patented.
On October 3, 2008, the BLM issued a patent for the Oro Grande mining claim. That patent was later cancelled to correct an error, and a new patent issued on February 10, 2009. The patent conveyed only “the mineral deposits within [the] association placer mining claim known as the Oro Grande Mining Claim,” reserving “[a]ll title in or to the surface estate and products thereof” and “[a] right-of-way thereon for ditches or canals constructed by the authority of the United States” to the United States. Since the patent issued, the United States Forest Service has asserted that McMaster “do[es] not own the structures located on the Oro Grande mining claim.”
On April 13, 2010, McMaster filed a complaint in federal district court under the Quiet Title Act,
On September 24, 2010, McMaster filed his First Amended Complaint, which added new claims under the Declaratory Judgment Act,
II. LEGAL BACKGROUND
A. Statutory History
The General Mining Law of 1872 (“Mining Law“),
Then, in 1964, Congress enacted the Wilderness Act,
Twenty years later, the California Wilderness Act of 1984 made the Wilderness Act applicable to the Oro Grande mining claim as of September 28, 1984. Pub. L. No. 98-425, Title I, § 101(a)(34) (1984).
B. Regulatory History
In 1966, the BLM promulgated a regulation to implement § 1133(d)(3) of the Wilderness Act. See
On May 22, 1998, the Solicitor of the Department of the Interior issued Opinion No. M-36994 disagreeing with BLM‘s practice of conveying fee-simple patents to all valid claims located before the wilderness designation. See Solicitor‘s Opinion at 20. The Solicitor‘s Opinion recognized the BLM‘s policies and practices, see id. at 19-20, but ultimately instructed the BLM to follow a new policy:
[M]ineral patents issued under the Mining Law for lands within the wilderness areas ... should convey only the mineral deposits within the claim, unless the mining claim for which the patent is sought was located and validated by a discovery prior to designation of the wilderness area and the claimant complied with all the requirements for obtaining a patent under the Mining Law prior to the wilderness designation, as determined by the Secretary.
Id. at 21. This interpretation specified that the new policy should “be applied to ... currently pending applications.” Id.
III. DISCUSSION
McMaster appeals the district court‘s dismissal of his QTA, APA, and DJA claims, arguing that he is entitled to fee-simple title to the surface estate of his claim.
“We review de novo the district court‘s dismissal for failure to state a claim pursuant to
A. QTA Claims
McMaster raised two independent QTA claims: (1) that the QTA required the government to convey fee-simple ownership of surface and mineral estates of the Oro Grande mining claim to McMaster; and (2) that McMaster properly holds title to all improvements and structures located on the Oro Grande mining claim. We consider each in turn.
1. Fee-simple title to Oro Grande mining claim
In dismissing McMaster‘s first QTA claim, the district court held pursuant to the Wilderness Act that McMaster did not have a “‘valid existing right’ to a patent conveying fee-simple ownership of the surface estate and structures associated with [its] mining claim.” The relevant portion of the Wilderness Act states:
[H]ereafter, subject to valid existing rights, all patents issued under the mining laws of the United States affecting national forest lands designated by this chapter as wilderness areas shall convey title to the mineral deposits within the claim ... , but each such patent shall reserve to the United States all title in or to the surface of the lands and products thereof, and no use of the surface of the claim or the resources therefrom not reasonably required for carrying on mining or prospecting shall be allowed except as otherwise expressly provided in this chapter: Provided, That, unless hereafter specifically authorized, no pat-
ent within wilderness areas designated by this chapter shall issue after December 31, 1983, except for the valid claims existing on or before December 31, 1983. Mining claims located after September 3, 1964, within the boundaries of wilderness areas designated by this chapter shall create no rights in excess of those rights which may be patented under the provisions of this subsection.
McMaster argues that in passing the Wilderness Act, Congress intended for claimants to receive fee-simple title to their pre-existing valid claims. More specifically, McMaster contends that the “valid existing rights” language of the Wilderness Act protects claimants’ legitimate expectations of fee-simple title, preserving the right to the surface estate for all those who had properly located a mining claim prior to the relevant wilderness designation.
McMaster claims that the BLM‘s regulation, policy, and manual are consistent with its interpretation and should have been applied to McMaster‘s claim, and that the Solicitor‘s Opinion, which is contrary to McMaster‘s interpretation, is not entitled to any deference.
a. BLM‘s regulation, Manual, and BLM policy
McMaster argues that the regulation, Manual, and BLM policy are consistent with his interpretation and require that McMaster be issued a fee-simple patent. None of these, however, clearly requires issuing title to the surface estate for all valid claims.
First, the regulation contained in
In contrast to the regulation, the Manual addresses claims that were established prior to the wilderness designation. The Manual states that “[f]or claims located before enactment of the Wilderness Act ... the claims must have a discovery as of the date of enactment to acquire the surface and mineral estates,” BLM Manual H-3860-1, Mineral Patent Application Processing, VIII-7 (Apr 17, 1991). Although the Manual indicates that a claim must be discovered prior to the wilderness designation to receive title to the surface estate, nowhere does the manual state that this is all that is required. Indeed, discovery is a necessary, but not a sufficient, condition for establishing a valid claim; the claim must also be located “by reference to some natural object or permanent monument as will identify the claim.”
Finally, the BLM policy states that “[a] patent conveying both surface and mineral rights may be issued on a valid claim located prior to the date the area was included as part of the National Wilderness Preservation System.” Bureau of Land Management, Wilderness Management Policy, 46 Fed. Reg. 47,180-01 (1981) (emphasis added). Although the BLM policy indicates more clearly that valid claims may receive fee-simple title, the language of the policy is discretionary (“may be issued“). The policy thus leaves room for BLM to impose additional requirements for receiving fee-simple title. And, in any event, like the Manual, a BLM management policy is not legally binding. See King‘s Meadow Ranches, 126 IBLA 339, 341 n. 2 (IBLA 1993) (stating that policies “not established by regulation ... lack[] the force and effect of law“); see also Schweiker, 450 U.S. at 789-90.
Thus, neither the regulation, nor the Manual, nor the BLM policy entitles McMaster to fee-simple title to the surface estate.
b. The Solicitor‘s Opinion
In contrast to McMaster‘s interpretation of “valid existing rights,” the Solicitor‘s Opinion concluded that the term refers to a claimant who had actually “filed a patent application, and established a right to a patent before the land in question was designated as wilderness” by “complying with all the requirements for obtaining a patent.” Solicitor‘s Opinion at 3, 21. Under this reading, the Wilderness Act does not preserve a right to a surface estate for those who “located a mining claim and made a discovery of a valuable mineral claim deposit before the land in question was designated as wilderness, but ... had not established a right to a patent before the land was designated as wilderness.” Id. at 3-4. Since the Solicitor‘s Opinion is contrary to McMaster‘s interpretation of the statute, we must determine whether it is owed deference.
i. Chevron deference
Under Chevron, we conduct a two-step inquiry to determine whether an agency interpretation warrants deference. At step one, we ask “whether Congress has directly spoken to the precise question at issue.” Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837, 842 (1984). “If the intent of Congress is clear, that is the end of the matter; [and we] must give effect to the unambiguously expressed intent of Congress.” Id. If, however, “the statute is silent or ambiguous,” id. at 843, prior to step two, “we must decide how much weight to accord an agency‘s interpretation,” Tualatin Valley Builders Supply, Inc. v. United States, 522 F.3d 937, 940 (9th Cir. 2008); see United States v. Mead Corp., 533 U.S. 218, 227-28 (2001); N. Cal. River Watch v. Wilcox, 633 F.3d 766, 772-73 (9th Cir. 2010). If we determine that Chevron deference applies, then we move to step two, where we will defer to the agency‘s interpretation if it is “based on a permissible construction of the statute.” Chevron, 467 U.S. at 843.
First, we hold that the meaning of “valid existing rights” in
In addition, the District of Columbia Circuit has specifically held that the phrase “subject to valid existing rights,” as contained in a different statute, is ambiguous under Chevron step one. See Nat‘l Mining Ass‘n v. Kempthorne, 512 F.3d 702, 707-08 (D.C. Cir. 2008).1 Moreover, with regard to the Wilderness Act in particular, the fact that the Department of the Interior has changed its practice—and as McMaster argues, also its written policies and regulations—with regard to what constitutes a “valid existing right” also supports our conclusion that the term is ambiguous. See Solicitor‘s Opinion at 19-20.2
Although it seems clear that Congress has explicitly delegated authority to the Secretary of the Interior to prescribe regulations relating to the operation of the Mining Law and the issuance of patents, see
ii. Skidmore deference
An agency action that does not warrant Chevron deference may still warrant “respect proportional to its ‘power to persuade.‘” Mead, 533 U.S. at 235 (quoting Skidmore v. Swift & Co., 323 U.S. 134, 140 (1944)). Under Skidmore, “[t]he weight of such a judgment in a particular case will depend upon the thoroughness evident in its consideration, the validity of its reasoning, its consistency with earlier and later pronouncements, and [any other] factors which give it power to persuade.” Skidmore, 323 U.S. at 140.
We conclude that the Solicitor‘s Opinion is entitled to respect under Skidmore. It is a well-reasoned, formal, signed, twenty-two page opinion, see Solicitor‘s Opinion at 1-22, that is “thorough[] in its consideration,” and ultimately persuasive. Skidmore, 323 U.S. at 140.
McMaster argues that the Solicitor‘s opinion is inconsistent “with earlier ... pronouncements.” For the reasons explained earlier, the Solicitor‘s Opinion was not clearly contrary to the regulation or, arguably, the Manual, although it does appear to be in tension with the prior BLM policy (though the policy still left the agency room for discretion). To the extent there is any inconsistency, however, this is just one factor under Skidmore. The Solicitor‘s Opinion also carefully analyzes the text, purpose, and legislative history of the Wilderness Act, as well as the “modern judicial treatment of valid existing rights with respect to legislation affecting mining claims and patents.” Solicitor‘s Opinion at 1-16. In sum, the Solicitor‘s Opinion is a “persuasive interpretation of the law,” Tualatin Valley Builders, 522 F.3d at 942, despite the fact that it arguably represents a change in the agency‘s view.5
First, the Solicitor‘s Opinion‘s reading of “valid existing rights” is consistent with the text of
Chevron deference, see Brandt-Erichsen v. U.S. Dep‘t of Interior, 999 F.2d 1376, 1381 (9th Cir. 1993), but Solicitor Opinions, which are binding on the IBLA and can overrule IBLA decisions are not, see
The Solicitor Opinion‘s reading is also consistent with the purpose of the Wilderness Act. The Wilderness Act was enacted to “secure for the American people of present and future generations the benefits of an enduring resource of wilderness” by creating and administering wilderness areas “for the use and enjoyment of the American people in such manner as will leave them unimpaired for future use and enjoyment as wilderness, and so as to provide for the protection of these areas, [and] the preservation of their wilderness character.”
In addition to being consistent with the text and purpose of the Wilderness Act, the Solicitor‘s Opinion is also in harmony with precedent. For example, in Alaska Miners v. Andrus, claimants challenged a provision of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (“ANCSA“),
Appellants ha[d] no such right to a patent or to the opportunity to apply for a patent outside of the time restriction [mandated by the Act]. Appellants may well have an existing right to prevent third parties from interfering with their
possessory interest. However, they have no right to prevent the government from conveying the legal title to the native corporations.
Id. Moreover, we reasoned that “the interest of a claimant in a mining claim, prior to the payment of any money for the granting of the patent for the land, is nothing more than a right to the exclusive possession of the land based upon conditions subsequent, a failure to fulfill which forfeits the locator‘s interest in the claim.” Id. (emphasis added).6
The U.S. Court of Claims has similarly held that the owner of a valid but unpatented mining claim had no right to receive a patent because he “had not yet taken the first step towards obtaining patents.” Freese, 639 F.2d at 758. In response to the claimant‘s argument that “his right to the issuance of a patent upon each of his mining claims vested as soon as he completed the discovery and location of each claim,” the court explained that “[t]he law is well-settled that [a] vested right [to a patent] does not arise until there has been full compliance with the extensive procedures set forth in the federal mining laws for the obtaining of a patent.” Id.; see also Cook v. United States, 37 Fed. Cl. 435, 445-46 (Fed. Cl. 1997) (holding that plaintiffs were “entitle[d] to a patent” and had a
vested property interest once they did “all that [was] required ... under existing law to receive title to public land, including the filing of all papers and, where applicable, the payment to the United States of the purchase price for a patent“). The court also explained that the claimant‘s “‘valid existing rights’ in his mining claims [were] ... preserved,” despite the fact that the claimant was completely denied a patent, because the claimant‘s “rights of use, enjoyment and disposition in his unpatented mining claims remain[ed] undiminished.” Freese, 639 F.2d at 758.
Although we previously held in Aleknagik, with regard to a different statute, that it was reasonable for an agency to interpret “valid existing rights” “to mean something other than ‘vested‘” where plaintiffs had a “legitimate claim” and the government represented that claimants had a right to that claim, 806 F.2d at 926-27,7 no such representation has been made to individuals in McMaster‘s situation. We reasoned in Aleknagik that “legitimate expectations may be recognized as valid existing rights, especially where the expectancy is created by the government in the first instance.” Id. at 927. Here, however, individuals with valid claims who have not even filed a patent application do not have
Moreover, the Supreme Court has held that “[a]lthough owners of unpatented mining claims hold fully recognized possessory interests in their claims, ... these interests are a ‘unique form of property.’ The United States, as owner of the underlying fee title to the public domain, maintains broad powers over the terms and conditions upon which the public lands can be used, leased, and acquired.” Locke, 471 U.S. at 104, 105 (citations omitted).9 Indeed, we held in Swanson v. Babbitt that “until a patent is issued, the government has broad authority to manage public lands” and “to remove those public lands from mining claims and patents,” 3 F.3d at 1352. Thus, individuals such as McMaster, who have only a valid claim, do not have a legitimate expectation of receiving a patent.
Finally, the Solicitor‘s Opinion also addressed the legislative history to the Wilderness Act. The Opinion discusses a letter to the House of Representatives from Assistant Secretary of the Interior, John A. Carver, Jr., which suggested adding the language “subject to valid existing rights.” H. Rep. No. 88-1538 (1964), reprinted in 1964 U.S.C.C.A.N. 3615. The letter explained:
The requirement of the bill that all patents issued after the effective date of this act shall convey title to mineral deposits with a reservation to the United States of all title to the surface of the lands must be subject to “valid existing rights.” The owner of a valid mining claim perfected under the mining laws prior to the effective date of this set has already acquired a possessory title to the surface of the land and any patent issued on such a claim after the effective date of this act must convey title to both the land and mineral deposits therein, unless provision is made for just compensation.
Id. at 3625. Although the letter states that a patent conveying fee-simple title “must” issue to the “owner of a valid mining claim perfected under the mining laws prior to the effective date of th[e] act” because the owner has “already acquired a possessory title to the surface of the land,”
In addition to the Carver letter, the Solicitor‘s Opinion also discusses the House Committee Report, which was apparently based on the Carver letter. Solicitor‘s Opinion at 8. The House Report states that
We agree with the Solicitor‘s Opinion that to the extent that the Carver letter or House Report implied that “owners of valid mining claims[, or staked claims,] have, without more, vested rights to a patent including the surface as well as the mineral deposits, [that] viewpoint is less persuasive,” see Solicitor‘s Opinion at 9, particularly since the Carver letter and House Report are somewhat inconsistent in their interpretation of “valid existing rights.” Moreover, the Carver and House Report interpretations are also inconsistent with the text and purpose of the Wilderness Act, as well as relevant case law, as has been explained. We find the Solicitor Opinion‘s conclusion with regard to the legislative history convincing: The “valid existing rights” provision is “best viewed as responsive to the general constitutional concern the Assistant Secretary raised, rather than as legislating any precise understanding of the scope of those rights.” Id. at 10. “[T]he suggestions offered in both the Carver letter and the House Committee Report ... should not ... be regarded as enacting into law a particular view of valid existing rights. Instead, by using such a general, common phrase, Congress was leaving it ultimately up to the courts to determine what ‘valid existing rights’ meant in the patenting context.” Id.
In sum, because the Solicitor‘s Opinion is consistent with the text of the statute, purpose, and our prior precedent, and because it adequately discussed and explained legislative history that could be perceived contrary to its interpretation, we find the Solicitor‘s Opinion to be persuasive. We therefore conclude that the Solicitor Opinion‘s interpretation of “valid existing rights” is entitled to Skidmore deference.
iii. Application
Applying the rule set forth in the Solicitor‘s Opinion to the facts of this case,10 it is undisputed that as of the effec-
2. Fee-simple title to mining structures and improvements on Oro Grande mining claim
McMaster argues that he properly holds title to all improvements and structures located on the Oro Grande mining claim because “[i]t is well established that mining structures incident to mining operations may be erected on valid claims,” and “the mining structures [here] were constructed expressly for the benefit of the Oro Grande, and because they are ... incident to mining the valuable mineral deposits that were granted in the limited patent, the structures are ‘appurtenances’ and were also granted to [McMaster].”
retroactive effect as applied to its case. See Solicitor‘s Opinion at 21 (stating that the Opinion should be applied to all “currently pending patent applications“). Although “retroactivity is not favored in the law,” and an agency does not have “power to promulgate retroactive rules unless that power is conveyed by Congress in express terms,” Bowen v. Georgetown Univ. Hosp., 488 U.S. 204, 208 (1988), the rule set forth in the Solicitor‘s Opinion does not give the statute retroactive effect. The Solicitor‘s interpretation “does not impact [McMaster‘s] current possessory interest in the claims, but rather affects only its prospective interest in further property rights in the claims.” R.T. Vanderbilt Co. v. Babbitt, 113 F.3d 1061, 1067 (9th Cir. 1997); see Freese, 639 F.2d at 758 (“At best,” plaintiff, who had a valid claim and was denied an opportunity to apply for a patent, “suffered a denial of the opportunity to obtain greater property than that which he owned....“).
To invoke the QTA, a complaint must “set forth with particularity the nature of the right, title, or interest which the plaintiff claims in the real property, the circumstances under which it was acquired, and the right, title, or interest claimed by the United States.”
Thus, we agree with the district court that McMaster has failed to plead with particularity when and how he obtained ownership of the structures located on the former Oro Grande mining claim. McMaster‘s complaint states:
Incident to, and in furtherance of, the mining operations, three structures have been erected on the Oro Grande mining claim: a cabin, a workshop, and an outhouse. The cabin was built in the early 1890s and is constructed entirely of split logs and shakes. The workshop is used to process samples during mining operations and to store mining equipment during seasons in which mining is not permitted.
McMaster also states that the Oro Grande claim was purchased from Edwin Lynch in 1934 with a Bill of Sale that conveyed all improvements, including a cabin and shed. McMaster provided the documents supporting the conveyance of the Oro Grande mining claim through time up to 1991 when McMaster received a joint tenancy deed for the Oro Grande mining claim noting improvements, including a cabin and a shed.
With regard to the origins of the title to the improvements, McMaster only generally alleges that the structures were constructed incident to mining operations, and specifically alleges that the cabin was built sometime in the early 1890s. Nowhere does McMaster allege whether or how Lynch obtained title, or whether he retained title until he sold the Oro Grande mining claim to McMaster. These particular facts are important because title to the structures may have passed to the Government at some time. When a claim is abandoned or deemed invalid, the title to surface structures passes to the United States. See Brothers v. United States, 594 F.2d 740, 741 (9th Cir. 1979). Thus, McMaster has failed to plead with particularly sufficient facts showing all of the circumstances under which his title to the structures was acquired,
And, in any event, because McMaster no longer holds a valid claim to the Oro Grande lands, by virtue of the fact that he received only a mineral patent, he is required to obtain a special use permit prior to using the surface of the land. See
We conclude that McMaster‘s second QTA claim was properly dismissed under
B. APA Claims
McMaster argues that the district court erred in dismissing his APA claims. McMaster‘s amended complaint contained three claims seeking relief under the APA. McMaster claimed: (1) that the patent reservations were not in accordance with law; (2) that the Solicitor‘s Opinion was not in accordance with law; and (3) that the BLM‘s patent reservations of the surface and remaining mineral estates, after equitable title vested, was arbitrary, capricious, and not in accordance with law.
We agree with the district court that McMaster‘s APA claim is essentially a challenge to the United States’ title to real property and, therefore, must be dismissed because the QTA is the exclusive means for challenging the United States’ title to real property.
1. Legal background
The Supreme Court first held in Block v. North Dakota ex rel. Bd. of Univ. & Sch. Lands that “Congress intended the QTA to provide the exclusive means by which adverse claimants could challenge the United States’ title to real property,” 461 U.S. 273, 276-77 (1983). In Block, North Dakota brought suit against the United States to settle a dispute over ownership of certain riverbed located in the Little Missouri River. Id. at 277-79. Although North Dakota had asserted a number of jurisdictional bases for its claim that it was entitled to injunctive and mandamus relief—including the APA and the DJA,12 id. at 278—the Court held that “North Dakota‘s action [could] proceed, if at all, only under the QTA.” Id. at 292-93. The Court reasoned that “[t]he balance, completeness, and structural integrity of the [QTA] belied the contention that it was designed merely to supplement other putative judicial relief,” and explained that if North Dakota were permitted to seek relief under the other statutes then “all the carefully-crafted provisions of the QTA deemed necessary for the protection of the national public interest could be averted ... by artful pleading.” Id. at 284-85 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). We have followed the Supreme Court‘s pronouncement in Block, and have similarly held that “[t]he Quiet Title Act is ‘the exclusive means’ by which adverse claimants can challenge the United States’ title to real property,” and that
a claimant “cannot avoid the limitations of the Quiet Title Act” by “seeking review under the Administrative Procedure Act.” Alaska v. Babbitt, 182 F.3d 672, 674 (9th Cir. 1999).
The rule in Block, however, is not without caveat. Recently, in Match-E-Be-Nash-She-Wish Band of Pottawatomi Indians v. Patchak, the Supreme Court held that the APA also may apply where the QTA “is not addressed to the type of grievance which the plaintiff seeks to assert.” 567 U.S. 209, 215 (2012) (citation omitted). The Court explained that although the QTA “provide[s] the exclusive means by which adverse claimants [can] challenge the United States’ title to real property,” id. at 220 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted), where the suit does not involve an adverse claim to title, “then the [QTA] cannot prevent an APA suit.” Id. at 215. Since the plaintiff in Patchak did not claim ownership to the property, but rather, claimed that the government‘s “decision to take land into trust violates a federal statute—a garden-variety APA claim,” the Court held that the APA, rather than the QTA, applied. Id. at 220.
Despite this caveat, it remains clear that under both Supreme Court precedent and our precedent that the QTA provides the exclusive remedy for claims involving adverse title disputes with the government.13
2. Analysis
Here, the “essence and bottom line,” Patchak, 567 U.S. at 220, of McMaster‘s APA claims is a dispute against the government over the title to the reserved surface estate of the Oro Grande mining claim.
This not a case where, for example, the government has disclaimed its title and the claims are founded on administrative wrongdoing. See Donnelly v. United States, 850 F.2d 1313, 1317-18 (9th Cir. 1988); Lee v. United States, 809 F.2d 1406, 1409 n. 2 (9th Cir. 1987). As in Block, “the only ‘administrative wrongdoing’ [that McMaster claims is] the government‘s alleged wrongful assertion of title itself.” Donnelly, 850 F.2d at 1318.
Since both the Supreme Court‘s and our precedents have held that “the QTA provides the exclusive remedy for title disputes against the government,” id. at 1318; see also Patchak, 567 U.S. at 220; Block, 461 U.S. at 286; Alaska, 182 F.3d at 674, McMaster‘s APA claims were properly dismissed under
C. DJA Claims
McMaster also argues that the district court erred in dismissing its three claims seeking relief under the DJA.
Block‘s holding that the QTA is the “exclusive means by which adverse claimants c[an] challenge the United States’ title to real property,” Block, 461 U.S. at 286, also applies to DJA claims. In Block, the plaintiff raised a DJA claim, but the Court determined that only the QTA claims could proceed. Id. at 278, 292-93.
Here again, the crux of McMaster‘s DJA claims is that McMaster is entitled to fee-simple ownership of his Oro Grande mining claim. Thus, McMaster‘s DJA claims must also fail. See Patchak, 567 U.S. at 220; Block, 461 U.S. at 287; Alaska, 182 F.3d at 674; Donnelly, 850 F.2d at 1318. McMaster‘s DJA claims were also properly dismissed under
IV. CONCLUSION
We hold that the district court did not err in dismissing McMaster‘s claims pursuant to
lenging the United States’ title to real property, we conclude that the district court also properly dismissed McMaster‘s APA and DJA claims.
AFFIRMED.
William W. CASTLE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. EUROFRESH, INC., aka Eurofresh Farms; Arizona Department of Corrections, an agency of the State of Arizona; Dora B. Schriro, Warden, former Director, Arizona Department of Corrections; Charles L. Ryan, Director, Arizona Department of Corrections; State of Arizona, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 11-17947.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Sept. 24, 2013.
Argued and Submitted April 11, 2013.