McMaster v. United States
| Decision Date | 24 September 2013 |
| Docket Number | No. 11–17489.,11–17489. |
| Citation | 731 F.3d 881 |
| Parties | 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. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Steven J. Lechner (argued), Mountain States Legal Foundation, Lakewood, CO; James S. Burling and Joshua P. Thompson, Pacific Legal Foundation, Sacramento, CA, for Plaintiff–Appellants.
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.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, Garland E. Burrell, Senior District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. 2:10–cv–00881–GEB–EFB.
Before: A. WALLACE TASHIMA and JAY S. BYBEE, Circuit Judges, and KIMBA M. WOOD, Senior District 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 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).
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.
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—formerlycalled the Conrad Bar placer mine—from the claim's original locator, Edwin Lynch. The Bill of Sale conveyed title to the mining claim and all improvements, including a cabin and a shed. The claim was subsequently “relocated” three times between 1934 and 1953. The current configuration of the Oro Grande mining claim was located on June 23, 1953, and the corresponding Notice of Location noted improvements made to the claim, including a cabin and a shed. After a series of intestate successions and conveyances, the Oro Grande was conveyed to McMaster on April 5, 1991. The 1991 Joint Tenancy Deed noted the cabin and shed as improvements.
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, 28 U.S.C. § 2409a, to quiet title to fee-simple ownership of the longstanding mining structures and improvements located on the Oro Grande mining claim. McMaster also brought a claim under the APA for judicial review of the BLM's action of issuing a patent conveying only the mineral estate. On June 30, 2010, the Government filed a motion to dismiss McMaster's complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). The district court granted the government's motion, holding (1) that the QTA is the exclusive means for challenging the United States' title to real property, (2) that under the QTA, McMaster “did not acquire any right to a patent until [he] filed the[ ] patent application,” at which time McMaster was entitled to title to only the mineral estate, and (3) that under the QTA, McMaster failed to “allege[ ] with particularity when and how [he] obtained ownership to the structures at issue.” McMaster was granted leave to amend his complaint.
On September 24, 2010, McMaster filed his First Amended Complaint, which added new claims under the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201–02. The government again filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint under Rule 12(b)(6), which the district court granted, dismissing McMaster's complaint with prejudice. The district court concluded that it was barred from reconsidering McMaster's APA claims by the law-of-the-case doctrine. It also dismissed McMaster's new DJA claims because it concluded that the QTA is the exclusive means for challenging the United States' interest in real property. Regarding McMaster's QTA claims, the district court concluded that McMaster had failed to remedy the problems that the court had identified in its prior dismissal order. McMaster timely appealed.
The General Mining Law of 1872 (“Mining Law”), 30 U.S.C. § 22 et seq., was enacted to permit citizens to enter and explore unappropriated federal lands in search of “valuable mineral deposits,” id. § 22. Citizens who discovered mineral deposits could then secure exclusive rights to the land by meeting certain statutory requirements. Id.; see Independence Min. Co., Inc. v. Babbitt, 105 F.3d 502, 506 (9th Cir.1997). First, a claimant could validate his claim by meeting the legal requirements for “locating” and discovering the claim. See30 U.S.C. § 28; see also Cole v. Ralph, 252 U.S. 286, 294–96, 40 S.Ct. 321, 64 L.Ed. 567 (1920). The holder of a valid, located claim is entitled to the “exclusive right of possession and enjoyment of all the surface included within the ... location[ ],” as long as he continues to meet certain requirements. 30 U.S.C. § 26; see id. § 28; see also Best v. Humboldt Placer Min. Co., 371 U.S. 334, 335–36, 83 S.Ct. 379, 9 L.Ed.2d 350 (1963). This possessory interest entitles the claim holder to “the right to extract all minerals from the claim without paying royalties to the United States,” Independence Min. Co., 105 F.3d at 506, but the United States retains title to the land, United States v. Locke, 471 U.S. 84, 104, 105 S.Ct. 1785, 85 L.Ed.2d 64 (1985). Second, “an individual who possesses a valid mining claim may go through an additional process to obtain a patent,” by applying to the BLM, in the Department of the Interior, and meeting additional statutory requirements. Swanson v. Babbitt, 3 F.3d 1348, 1350 (9th Cir.1993); see30 U.S.C. §§ 29, 35; Independence Min. Co., 105 F.3d at 506. Under the General Mining Law, a patent generally conveyed fee-simple title to both the surface estate and the mineral deposits. See Independence Min. Co., 105 F.3d at 506;see also Andrus v. Shell Oil Co., 446 U.S. 657, 658 & n. 1, 100 S.Ct. 1932, 64 L.Ed.2d 593 (1980).
In 1955, however, Congress enacted the Surface Resources and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sierra Club v. U.S. Envtl. Prot. Agency
...id. at 843, 104 S.Ct. 2778, “ ‘must [we] decide how much weight to accord an agency's interpretation.’ ” McMaster v. United States, 731 F.3d 881, 889 (9th Cir.2013) (quoting Tualatin Valley Builders Supply, Inc. v. United States, 522 F.3d 937, 940 (9th Cir.2008)). EPA contends there is ambi......
-
Nat'l Mining Ass'n v. Zinke
...99 L.Ed.2d 534 (1988) ).27 We note that Interior's manuals do not carry the force of law and are not binding. McMaster v. United States, 731 F.3d 881, 888–89 (9th Cir. 2013).28 The northeast and west portions of the North Parcel include several specific sites of cultural significance identi......
-
Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Serv.
...a fee simple interest (i.e., a patented mining claim) in both the surface of the claim and the minerals beneath. See McMaster v. U.S. , 731 F.3d 881, 885 (9th Cir. 2013).D. Organic Act of 1897 The Organic Act of 1897 delegates to the Secretary of Agriculture the ability to "make provisions ......
-
Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc. v. U.S. Dep't of the Interior
...particular sites and parties"; and "grant[ed] EPA considerable discretion to deviate from the policy[ ]").16 McMaster v. United States , 731 F.3d 881 (9th Cir. 2013), and Center for Biological Diversity v. Jewell , 248 F. Supp. 3d 946 (D. Ariz. 2017), do not, contrary to Defendants' suggest......
-
DISORDERED LAW: OBAMA TO TRUMP EXECUTIVE BRANCH ORDERS MANDATING NON-ENFORCEMENT OF INTERNATIONAL TREATIES.
...Doe, 552 F.3d at 81). (293) Washington State Dep't of Soc. Servs. v. Keffeler, 537 U.S. 371, 385 (2003). (294) McMaster v. United States, 731 F.3d 881 (9th Cir. (295) Defendant's Memorandum in Support of Summary Judgment, supra note 283, at 17. (296) McMaster v. United States, 731 F.3d 881,......