Cape Fox Corp. v. U.S.
| Decision Date | 26 May 1981 |
| Docket Number | 79-4136,Nos. 78-3439,s. 78-3439 |
| Citation | 646 F.2d 399 |
| Parties | CAPE FOX CORPORATION, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America et al., Defendants-Appellees. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
Peter R. Ellis, Ellis, Sund & Whittaker, Ketchikan, Alaska, for Cape fox.
Peter R. Steenland, Jr., Washington, D. C., argued for U. S.; Anne S. Almy, Sanford Sagalkin, Washington, D. C., on brief.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Alaska.
Before WALLACE, HUG and SCHROEDER, Circuit Judges.
This case concerns the rights of a Native Village Corporation organized pursuant to the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act and the obligations of the federal government with regard to land selected under the Act to be transferred to a Native Village Corporation. The specific issues relate to an extension by the United States Forest Service of a pre-existing timber contract involving lands selected by a Native Village Corporation.
Cape Fox Corporation is a Native Village Corporation organized pursuant to the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA), 43 U.S.C. §§ 1601-28. ANCSA was passed by Congress for the purpose of settling "all claims by Natives and Native groups of Alaska, based on aboriginal land claims." 43 U.S.C. § 1601(a). The Act operated to extinguish the aboriginal land titles of all Alaska Natives, as well as any claims based upon aboriginal title. The Alaska Natives received in exchange 40,000,000 acres of land in fee simple and $962,500,000. See generally United States v. Atlantic Richfield Co., 612 F.2d 1132, 1134 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, -- S.Ct. --, 101 S.Ct. 244, 66 L.Ed.2d 113 (1980). In order to receive benefits under the Act, Native residents of Native Villages must organize as profit or nonprofit corporations. 43 U.S.C. § 1607. Cape Fox is one such corporation. A Native Village Corporation is entitled to select for transfer to the corporation certain federal lands in Alaska.
Cape Fox filed suit against the United States, certain federal officials, and three private timber companies seeking declaratory and injunctive relief and damages as a result of the government's extension of a timber contract involving lands that Cape Fox had selected pursuant to ANCSA. We affirm in part, and reverse and remand in part with an order to dismiss.
This case came to the district court, 456 F.Supp. 784 (D.Alaska 1978), on cross-motions for summary judgment. The stipulated facts include the following. In 1969 the United States entered into a timber sale contract with Annette Timber Corporation, later known as Alaska Timber Corporation (ATC); the expiration date on the contract was December 31, 1974. ANCSA was enacted in December 1971.
In 1973 the Ketchikan Pulp Company (KPC) assumed performance of the timber sale contract as ATC's purchaser's representative. In April 1974 the Forest Service notified ATC that it might not qualify for a contract extension because it was not making adequate progress in the logging operation. Subsequently, KPC undertook substantial efforts to qualify for the extension. In the meantime, Cape Fox had been formed.
On November 25, 1974, ATC requested a two-year extension of the contract. On December 2, 1974, the Forest Service informed Cape Fox by letter that the contract, which involved lands within the area available for selection by Cape Fox, would probably be extended. On December 12, 1974, Cape Fox submitted a selection application which included specific lands covered by the contract. On December 23 the contract was conditionally extended to allow environmental modifications.
On December 26, 1974, Sealaska, the regional corporation formed pursuant to ANCSA, objected to the extension of the contract on behalf of itself and Cape Fox pending a meeting with the Forest Service. Sealaska withdrew its objection after the meeting, and the final contract, with environmental modifications, was executed on December 31, 1975.
Early in 1976 Cape Fox asked the Forest Service to substitute other areas for contract lands which had been selected by Cape Fox. The Forest Service refused, and advised Cape Fox that unilateral modification of the contract boundaries was not possible. On May 6, 1977, the Forest Service notified ATC that the contract requirements had been met and that the contract was closed.
Cape Fox sought several forms of relief in the district court as a result of the government's extension of the timber contract. First, Cape Fox sought a declaratory judgment regarding damages, as well as damages in excess of $10,000, against the United States. Cape Fox also sought an injunction compelling the federal officials to immediately convey the lands Cape Fox had selected, as well as declaratory judgments regarding the trust responsibilities of the United States and federal officials when managing lands selected by a Native Village Corporation pursuant to ANCSA and the propriety of the contract extension. Finally, Cape Fox sought declaratory and injunctive relief against the federal officials to preserve allegedly deteriorating timber assets, and trespass damages and declaratory relief against the timber companies that had been awarded the logging contract.
The district court held that it had no jurisdiction to hear the damage action against the United States, and transferred that claim, along with the request for a declaratory judgment regarding damages, to the Court of Claims. The district court found that ANCSA does not give rise to trust responsibilities on the part of the United States or federal officials, that the timber contract was properly extended, and that ANCSA does not require the immediate conveyance of lands selected pursuant to the Act by Native Village Corporations. The district court did not decide the issues regarding the allegedly deteriorating timber assets pending the outcome of an evidentiary hearing. Finally, the trespass actions against the timber companies were dismissed on the ground that Cape Fox had neither actual nor constructive possession of the lands in question.
We affirm the order of the district court transferring the damage action against the United States to the Court of Claims. The Court of Claims has exclusive jurisdiction of damage actions against the United States when the amount sought is greater than $10,000. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1491, 1346(a)(2); Marcus Garvey Square, Inc. v....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rosebud Sioux Tribe v. US, BUR. OF INDIAN AFF.
...359, 364 (D.D.C. 1979); Cape Fox Corp. v. United States, 456 F.Supp. 784, 794 (D.Alaska 1978), rev'd in part on other grounds, 646 F.2d 399 (9th Cir.1981). Plaintiff further asserts that this Court has jurisdiction under the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201.13 By its express term......
-
Seldovia Native Ass'n, Inc. v. Lujan
...or bands.' ") (quoting Cape Fox Corp. v. United States, 456 F.Supp. 784, 798 (D. Alaska 1978), rev'd in part and remanded in part, 646 F.2d 399 (9th Cir.1981)). CONCLUSION Conditional purchase options are "valid existing rights" under ANCSA. The exclusion of land subject to OTE conditional ......
-
White Mountain Apache Tribe v. Williams
...608 F.2d at 1231. The court cites Cape Fox Corp. v. United States, 456 F.Supp. 784, 798 (D.Alaska 1978), rev'd on other grounds, 646 F.2d 399 (9th Cir.1981), and two other cases for that proposition. However, Cape Fox is inapposite. It involved "a Native corporation organized under the Alas......
-
Hahn v. U.S.
...supra, 720 F.2d at 302-03 (Adams, J., concurring); Minnesota by Noot v. Heckler, supra, 718 F.2d at 859; Cape Fox Corp. v. United States, 646 F.2d 399, 402 (9th Cir.1981); Sellers v. Brown, 633 F.2d 106, 108 (8th Cir.1980); Polos v. United States, 556 F.2d 903, 905 (8th Cir.1977). See also ......