425 F.3d 1213 (9th Cir. 2005), 04-35053, Skranak v. Castenada
| Citation | 425 F.3d 1213 |
| Party Name | Henry SKRANAK, Plaintiff, and Alan Skranak; James Skranak, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Robert CASTENADA, Supervisor, Kootenai National Forest; United States Forest Service, of the United States Department of Agriculture, Defendants-Appellees. Charles W. Harpole, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Robert Castenada, Supervisor, Kootenai National Forest; United St |
| Case Date | October 12, 2005 |
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals, U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
Page 1213
Argued and Submitted February 10, 2005.
Page 1214
COUNSEL
Ward A. Shanahan, Gough, Shanahan, Johnson and Waterman, Helena, Montana, argued the cause for the appellants and was on the briefs.
Katherine W. Hazard, Washington, D.C., argued the cause for the appellees. Thomas L. Sansonetti, Assistant Attorney General, Ruth Ann Storey, and John Smeltzer, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., and Alan Campbell and James Snow, United States Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C., were on the brief.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Montana, D.C. Nos. CV-00-00233-DWM, CV-00-00232-DWM Donald W. Molloy, District Judge, Presiding.
Before: Monroe G. McKay, [*] Diarmuid F. O'Scannlain, and Carlos T. Bea, Circuit Judges.
O'SCANNLAIN, Circuit Judge:
We must decide whether the United States Forest Service properly denied
Page 1215
owners access to their patented mining claims within the Kootenai National Forest in Montana.
I
A
Alan Skranak and James Skranak ("the Skranaks") currently own the 50-acre "Fourth-of-July" tract, 1 consisting of four mining claims in the Kootenai National Forest in Montana. The United States granted a patent on one in 1907 and on the other three in 1912. A six-foot wide wagon road was built to the tract in 1902. The road has long since been closed to motorized traffic and now functions as the Fourth-of-July trail.
Henry Skranak, the Skranaks' father, bought the Fourth-of-July tract in 1961 and has had numerous run-ins with the Forest Service over issues of access in his efforts to work the mining claims. In 1995 Henry Skranak requested a special use permit under the Alaska National Interest Land Conservation Act ("ANILCA") to construct a 2.1-mile access road on and near the Fourth-of-July trail. The Forest Service considered the request and its potential effects on endangered species, water quality, and recreation, among other concerns. The Forest Service decided to allow the road to be built, but along a different, 2.52-mile route, in order to minimize its impact. Road construction would only be permitted from June 16 to October 15 in each year. The Forest Service promised to issue an "easement" good for a ten-year period and renewable thereafter upon completion of construction, estimated to be within two to three years. In order to protect grizzlies, the Forest Service would permit only 46 vehicle round trips from June 16 to September 15, and 38 round trips from September 16 to November 15, with unlimited access in the winter. Use would be forbidden from April 1 to June 15.
B
Charles Harpole owns the 40-acre "Wayup Mine" tract, consisting of two mining claims which the United States patented in 1903. Currently, a non-system primitive road off of Forest Road 6746 ("FR 6746") provides access. FR 6746 is open year round to motorized traffic, but is in need of maintenance and reconstruction. The Forest Service states that FR 6746 was built sometime between 1900 and 1930, and has not been maintained for 30 years. The non-system road is 1.3 miles long and in need of significant work before it can be used by motorized traffic.
Beginning in 1983, Harpole worked the mining claims episodically. During such times, the Forest Service allowed him to have access but required that he obtain a permit. The Forest Service has blocked access entirely during those periods in which Harpole was not using it.
In 1995, after nearly a decade of inactivity, Harpole applied for a special use permit under ANILCA to reconstruct and to use FR 6746 and the non-system road. The Forest Service considered the request and its potential effects on endangered species, water quality, and recreation, among other concerns and granted Harpole's permit, but with conditions. Road construction would only be permitted from June 16 to October 15 in each year. The Forest Service promised to issue an "easement" good for a ten-year period and renewable thereafter upon completion of construction, estimated to be within two to three years. In order to protect grizzlies, the Forest Service would permit only 38 vehicle round trips from April 1 to June 15, 46 vehicle round trips from June 16 to
Page 1216
September 15, and 38 vehicle round trips from September 16 to November 15, with unlimited access in the winter.
C
Henry Skranak and Harpole appealed from the denial of unconditional permits, complaining that the special use permits either took or ignored their easements. They also complained that they ought not to bear the cost of improving Forest Service roads that would become accessible to the public. The Forest Service denied their joint administrative appeal.
At that point, the Skranaks (their father having died and ownership of the Fourth-of-July tract having passed to them) filed suit in district court to quiet title to an easement to the Fourth-of-July tract under the Quiet Title Act and to challenge the Forest Service's permit as arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act ("APA"). In a separate action, Harpole raised similar Quiet Title Act and APA claims with respect to the Wayup Mine.
On cross motions in the two respective actions, the district court granted summary judgments in favor of the Forest Service. The district court held that neither the Skranaks or Harpole had owned an easement under any theory; that if they did, ANILCA had extinguished it; and, with respect to the APA claims, that the conditions on the permits were reasonable. Harpole and the Skranaks have timely appealed.
II
As the district court should have, we forbear any consideration of the Skranaks' and Harpole's easement claims under the Quiet Title Act until we determine whether we have jurisdiction. The Skranaks and Harpole filed suit on those claims on December 28, 2000. The Quiet Title Act contains a 12-year statute of limitations. 28 U.S.C. § 2409a(g). Therefore, the Skranaks' and Harpole's claims are barred if they knew or should have known of the United States' adverse claim by December 28, 1988.
Such bar is jurisdictional. The Quiet Title Act is a waiver of sovereign immunity. If the statute of limitations has run on a waiver of sovereign immunity, federal courts lack jurisdiction. Block v. North Dakota, 461 U.S. 273, 292 (1983); see also Adams v. United States, 255 F.3d 787, 796 (9th Cir. 2001) (" Adams I") (holding that a district court grant of summary judgment to the government on a Quiet Title Act claim was improper because the statute of limitations had run, removing jurisdiction). Although the United States did not move to dismiss the Quiet Title Act claim on statute of limitations grounds below, jurisdictional bars cannot be waived by the parties and may be addressed sua sponte. Humboldt County v. United States, 684 F.2d 1276, 1280 (9th Cir. 1982). Before reaching the merits, then, we must decide whether the Skranaks and Harpole have actions to quiet title that accrued before December 28, 1988.
A
We have given significant guidance as to when a Quiet Title Act statute of limitations begins running in McFarland v. Norton, No. 03-35831, ---F.3d at--- (9th Cir. 2005). We pointed out that the government, in its capacity as the owner of the alleged servient tenement, has "the right to reasonable use of its land," and we concluded that "mild interference with the use of an easement pursuant to the government's own property interests will not start the statute of limitations running." Id. at ---. More importantly, we explained that federal agencies like the Forest
Page 1217
Service often have regulatory powers over easements and other property interests, including, presumably, the ability to require permits and put conditions on use. See, e.g., Clouser v. Espy, 42 F.3d 1522, 1538 (9th Cir. 1994) (holding that 16 U.S.C. § 551 confers broad powers on the Forest Service to regulate roads for the good of the forests). Therefore, to avoid forcing landowners and the government into "premature and often unnecessary suits" over title, Michel, 65 F.3d at 132, we concluded that government "regulatory or supervisory actions, as opposed to those that deny the easement's existence, will not trigger the statute of limitations." McFarland, No. 03-35831, ----F.3d at ---.
1
Since the statute of limitations issue was not addressed in the district court, the record is not well developed. Even on the current scanty record, however, we are able to determine that the Skranaks' action to quiet title accrued before 1988. By the 1940s, at the latest, the Forest Service had converted the road into a trail usable only for hiking and riding. Although merely barring the public's vehicular access would not have necessarily been inconsistent with the Skranaks' predecessors-in-interest's easement, 2 affirmatively converting the road to a trail barred not only the public's vehicular access but the owner's use of the alleged easement as well. Because converting the road to a trail barred access in a way that was neither temporary nor obviously overcome by the securing of a permit or special permission, the Skranaks' predecessors-in-interest should...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
2006 Ninth Circuit environmental review.
...has "demonstrated a lack of any existing rights or routes of access available by deed or under State or common law"). (1010) Skranak, 425 F.3d at 1221. To avoid conflict with the holding in Adams v. United States (Adams I), 3 F.3d 1254 (9th Cir. 1993) that access under ANILCA is determined ......
-
2005 Ninth Circuit Environmental Review.
...953 (9th Cir. 2005) Natural Resources Defense Council v. United States Forest Service, 421 F.3d 797 (9th Cir. 2005) Skranak v. Castaneda, 425 F.3d 1213 (9th Cir. 2005) ANNA STASCH ARC Ecology v. United States Department of Air Force, 411 F.3d 1092 (9th Cir. 2004) Association of Irritated Re......