Kane Cnty. v. United States, 18-4122

Citation928 F.3d 877
Decision Date25 June 2019
Docket NumberNo. 18-4122,18-4122
Parties KANE COUNTY, UTAH, Plaintiff - Appellee, and The State of Utah, Intervenor Plaintiff - Appellee, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant - Appellee. Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance; The Wilderness Society, Movants - Appellants.
CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (10th Circuit)

928 F.3d 877

KANE COUNTY, UTAH, Plaintiff - Appellee,
and
The State of Utah, Intervenor Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
UNITED STATES of America, Defendant - Appellee.


Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance; The Wilderness Society, Movants - Appellants.

No. 18-4122

United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.

FILED June 25, 2019


Chad R. Derum, Manning Curtis Bradshaw & Bednar PLLC (Jess M. Krannich and Trevor J. Lee, Manning Curtis Bradshaw & Bednar PLLC, and Stephen H.M. Bloch, Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, with him on the briefs), Salt Lake City, Utah, for Movants-Appellants.

James A. Maysonett, United States Department of Justice, Environment & Natural Resources Division (Jeffrey Bossert Clark, Assistant Attorney General, and Eric Grant, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, with him of the brief), Washington, D.C., for Defendant-Appellee United States of America.

Shawn T. Welch, Holland & Hart LLP (Richard D. Flint and Chelsea J. Davis, Holland & Hart LLP, with him on the brief), Salt Lake City, Utah, for Plaintiff-Appellee Kane County, Utah.

Sean D. Reyes, Utah Attorney General, Anthony L. Rampton, Kathy A.F. Davis, and David Halverson, Assistant Attorneys, Utah Attorney General’s Office, Salt Lake City, Utah, on the brief for the Intervenor Plaintiff-Appellee The State of Utah.

Before TYMKOVICH, Chief Judge, EBEL, and PHILLIPS, Circuit Judges.

PHILLIPS, Circuit Judge.

This case comes to us for a third time. This time, we review SUWA’s challenge to the district court’s denial of its second motion to intervene. SUWA filed this second motion after we reversed the district court’s determinations on the width of rights-of-way on three roadways. Responding to the issues now raised, we conclude that SUWA has standing to intervene as a party defendant; that we review SUWA’s second motion to intervene de novo and not for an abuse of discretion; and that SUWA has met all requirements to intervene as of right under Rule 24(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Accordingly, exercising jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we reverse the district court’s denial of SUWA’s second motion to intervene.

BACKGROUND

In 2008, Kane County sued the United States under the Quiet Title Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2409a, which provides "the exclusive means by which adverse claimants c[an] challenge the United States’ title to real property." Block v. N. Dakota ex rel. Bd. of Univ. & Sch. Lands , 461 U.S. 273, 286, 103 S.Ct. 1811, 75 L.Ed.2d 840 (1983). Kane County alleged that it held title to fifteen rights-of-way under Section 8 of the Mining Act of 1866, more commonly known as "Revised Statute (R.S.) 2477." In enacting R.S. 2477, Congress codified "a standing offer of a free right of way over the public domain," allowing the construction of highways over public lands not already "reserved for public uses." Lindsay Land & Live Stock Co. v. Churnos , 75 Utah 384, 285 P. 646, 648 (1929) (internal quotations omitted). In 1976, Congress enacted the Federal Land Policy and Management Act, which repealed R.S. 2477, but preserved already-existing rights-of-way. 43 U.S.C. § 1769(a).

Seven months after Kane County filed its complaint, SUWA1 moved to intervene

928 F.3d 883

as of right under Rule 24(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Both Kane County and the United States opposed the motion. After a hearing, the district court denied SUWA’s motion, concluding that SUWA had no legal interest in the asserted rights-of-way, because "the only issue in this case is whether Kane County can establish that it holds title to the roads at issue" and SUWA "does not claim title to th[ese] roads." Kane Cty., Utah v. United States , No. 2:08-CV-315, 2009 WL 959804, at *2 (D. Utah Apr. 6, 2009). The court further concluded that even if SUWA did have an interest, it had failed to show that the United States would not adequately represent that interest or that it possessed "any special expertise, experience, or knowledge with respect to the historic use of the roads that would not be available to the United States." Id. at *2–3.

In 2009, SUWA appealed, and in March 2010 we affirmed, concluding that "even assuming SUWA has an interest in the quiet title proceedings at issue, SUWA has failed to establish that the United States may not adequately represent SUWA’s interest." Kane Cty., Utah v. United States , 597 F.3d 1129, 1133 (10th Cir. 2010) (" Kane County I "). Specifically, we rejected SUWA’s argument that it had shown the United States would not adequately represent SUWA’s interest in litigating title, despite SUWA’s reliance on its history of adversarial relations with the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and on the BLM’s alleged unwillingness to defend federal control. Id. at 1134–35.

We raised the possibility of looking beyond the binary title determination to address the "potential scope of Kane County’s purported rights-of-way." Id. at 1135. But we ultimately declined to do so after noting that SUWA had not argued in the district court that scope was part of the title determination. Id. Further, we noted that SUWA hadn’t even raised the issue on appeal until questioned about it during oral argument. Id . Accordingly, we deemed the scope argument waived "for purposes of this appeal." Id. We affirmed on grounds that SUWA had "failed to establish, at this stage of the litigation, that the federal government will not adequately protect its interest." Id.

In March 2010, soon after we decided Kane County I , the district court granted the State of Utah’s motion to intervene as of right as a plaintiff. Then, in August 2011, after having "traveled all of the roads at issue with counsel and representatives of the parties during a two-day site visit," the district court held a bench trial on the disputed rights-of-way. See Kane Cty., Utah (1) v. United States , No. 2:08-CV-00315, 2013 WL 1180764, at *1 (D. Utah Mar. 20, 2013). At trial, the court heard from twenty-six witnesses and received over one hundred and sixty exhibits. Kane Cty., Utah v. United States , 772 F.3d 1205 (10th Cir. 2014). After post-trial briefing, in which SUWA participated as an amicus curiae,2 the district court issued memorandum decisions concluding that (1) it had subject-matter jurisdiction under the Quiet Title Act over all the disputed roads, and that (2) Kane County and the

928 F.3d 884

State of Utah had proved R.S. 2477 rights-of-way on twelve of the fifteen roads or road segments. Id. The court also decided the scope—i.e., the reasonable and necessary width based on the pre-1976 use—of the proved rights-of-way. Id.

In 2013, the United States and the plaintiffs each filed separate appeals. We summarily denied SUWA’s motion to intervene in the cross-appeals. In 2014, we affirmed in part and reversed in part. Kane Cty. , 772 F.3d at 1209–25 (" Kane County II "). Relevant here, we reversed the district court’s scope determination for three of the rights-of-way—Swallow Park Road, North Swag Road, and Skutumpah Road—as well as its decision to allow "unspecified future improvements" on these three rights-of-way, id. at 1223–25.3

The "scope" of a right-of-way is a question of state law, and under Utah law a right-of-way may be expanded beyond the beaten path where "reasonable and necessary" to safely accommodate the pre-1976 use. Sierra Club v. Hodel , 848 F.2d 1068, 1080, 1083 (10th Cir. 1988), overruled on other grounds by Vill. of Los Ranchos De Albuquerque v. Marsh , 956 F.2d 970 (10th Cir. 1992). In other words, an R.S. 2477 right-of-way in Utah may be widened "as necessary to meet the exigencies of increased travel, at least to the extent of a two-lane road." Id. at 1083. This analysis requires the district court to proceed in three steps. First, the court must make the binary determination of whether a right-of-way exists at all. Id. Second, the court must determine the pre-1976 uses of the right-of-way. Id. And third, the court must decide whether, based on the pre-1976 use, the right-of-way should be widened to meet the exigencies of increased travel. Id. To the extent that the right-of-way holder wishes to improve4 the right-of-way beyond what is reasonable and necessary, however, it must first consult with the BLM. Id. at 1084–85.

In its memorandum decision, the district court had concluded that Kane County and the State of Utah had proved 24-foot rights-of-way on Swallow Park and North Swag roads (five-mile stretches of dirt road with a current travel surface of between

928 F.3d 885

10 and 12 feet), and a 66-foot right-of-way on Skutumpah Road (a "major two-lane thoroughfare" stretching thirty three miles with a current travel surface of between 24 and 28 feet). Kane Cty. II , 772 F.3d at 1223 ; Kane Cty. , 2013 WL 1180764, at *9. But because the district court had failed to consider the pre-1976 uses of these roads, we remanded for it to redetermine the width of the roadways. Kane Cty. II , 772 F.3d at 1223. Specifically, we recognized that while a "road can be ‘widened [beyond its pre-1976 boundaries] to meet the exigencies of increased travel,’ including where necessary to ensure safety," the reasonableness and necessity of any expansion beyond the pre-1976 right-of-way must be read " ‘in the light of traditional uses to which the right-of-way was put...

To continue reading

Request your trial
62 cases
  • United States v. City of Albuquerque
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of New Mexico
    • 12 de junho de 2020
    ...requirements of Article III if the intervenor wishes to pursue relief not requested' by an existing party." Kane Cty. v. United States, 928 F.3d 877, 886-87 (10th Cir. 2019)(quoting Town of Chester, N.Y. v. Laroe Estates, Inc., 137 S. Ct. 1645, 1648 (2017)). In Town of Chester, New York v. ......
  • Crestwood Behavioral Health, Inc. v. Lacy
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • 19 de outubro de 2021
    ..., supra , 830 F.3d at p. 854.) " ‘[D]elay in itself does not make a request for intervention untimely.’ " ( Kane County, Utah v. United States (10th Cir. 2019) 928 F.3d 877, 891.) When mandatory intervention "is sought, because ‘the would-be intervenor may be seriously harmed if interventio......
  • United States v. City of Albuquerque
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of New Mexico
    • 16 de dezembro de 2021
    ... ... because it is vague and “malleable.” San Juan ... Cnty., Utah v. United States, 503 F.3d 1163, 1192-93 ... (10th Cir. 2007)(en banc) (abrogated on ... requested' by an existing party.” Kane Cnty. v ... United States, 928 F.3d 877, 886-87 (10th Cir ... 2019)(quoting Town of ... ...
  • Hill v. Warsewa
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit
    • 23 de janeiro de 2020
    ...because the Supreme Court did not "revisit the doctrine of third party standing" in that case. Kane County v. United States, 928 F.3d 877, 900–01 (10th Cir. 2019) (Tymkovich, C.J., dissenting). We agree and hold that third party standing should continue to be analyzed under the framework of......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
4 books & journal articles
  • THE EMERGING LAW OF OUTDOOR RECREATION ON THE PUBLIC LANDS.
    • United States
    • Environmental Law Vol. 51 No. 1, March 2021
    • 22 de março de 2021
    ...of this Article. See S. Utah Wilderness All. v. Bureau of Land Mgmt., 425 F.3d 735, 740-41 (2005); Kane County, Utah v. United States, 928 F.3d 877, 882, 884 (10th Cir. 2019), rehearing en banc denied, 950 F.3d 1223 (10th Cir. (333) Keiter, Toward a National Conservation Network Act, supra ......
  • Creating Space For Community Representation in Police Reform Litigation
    • United States
    • Georgetown Law Journal No. 109-3, February 2021
    • 1 de fevereiro de 2021
    ...neglect” (quoting Arakaki v. Cayetano, 324 F.3d 1078, 1086 (9th Cir. 2003))). 164. Id. 165. See id. 166. Kane County v. United States, 928 F.3d 877, 892 (10th Cir. 2019) (quoting Bottoms v. Dresser Indus., Inc., 797 F.2d 869, 872 (10th Cir. 1986)). 167. Id. 168. Texas v. United States, 805 ......
  • Chapter 12 Ethical Compliance During and After the NEPA Project Development Phase
    • United States
    • FNREL - Special Institute National Environmental Policy Act (FNREL)
    • Invalid date
    ...(7th Cir. 1982). Courts in other circuits routinely allow intervention by the project proponents. See Kane County, Utah v. United States, 928 F.3d 877 (10th Cir. 2019); Utah Ass'n of Counties v. Clinton, 255 F.3d 1246 (10th Cir. 2001); Conservation Law Foundation of England, Inc. v. Mosbach......
  • Utah Law Developments
    • United States
    • Utah State Bar Utah Bar Journal No. 32-5, October 2019
    • Invalid date
    ...to so-called Rhines stays in the habeas context and dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Kane County, Utah v. United States 928 F.3d 877 (10th Cir. June 25, 2019) The Tenth Circuit addressed the U.S. Supreme Court's recent holding, in Town of Chester, New York v. Laroe Estates, In......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT