McIntyre v. U.S., No. 85-3861

CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)
Writing for the CourtBefore WALLACE and THOMPSON; WALLACE
Citation789 F.2d 1408
PartiesCarmel J. McINTYRE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America; Cecil D. Andrus, Secretary of the Interior, in his official capacity; Frank Gregg, Director, Bureau of Land Management, in his official capacity; Curtis V. McVee, Alaska State Director, Bureau of Land Management; Alaska Native Claims Appeal Board, United States Department of the Interior; Eklutna, Inc.; and Cook Inlet Region, Inc., Defendants-Appellees.
Docket NumberNo. 85-3861
Decision Date20 May 1986

Page 1408

789 F.2d 1408
Carmel J. McINTYRE, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES of America; Cecil D. Andrus, Secretary of the
Interior, in his official capacity; Frank Gregg, Director,
Bureau of Land Management, in his official capacity; Curtis
V. McVee, Alaska State Director, Bureau of Land Management;
Alaska Native Claims Appeal Board, United States Department
of the Interior; Eklutna, Inc.; and Cook Inlet Region,
Inc., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 85-3861.
United States Court of Appeals,
Ninth Circuit.
Argued and Submitted Feb. 11, 1986.
Decided May 20, 1986.

Page 1409

Joseph W. Evans, Birch, Horton, Bittner, Pestinger & Anderson, Anchorage, Alaska, for plaintiff-appellant.

Deborah Smith, Asst. U.S. Atty., Anchorage, Alaska, Ellen J. Durkee, Dept. of Justice, Appellate Section, Lands Div., Washington, D.C., David P. Wolf, Copeland, Landye, Bennett, & Wolf, Anchorage, Alaska, for defendants-appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Alaska.

Before WALLACE and THOMPSON, Circuit Judges, and STEPHENS, * District Judge.

WALLACE, Circuit Judge:

McIntyre appeals the district court's order granting summary judgment pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b). He contends that the district court erred in concluding that it did not have subject matter jurisdiction based on the 12-year statute of limitations of the Quiet Title Act (the Act), 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2409a(f). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1291, and we affirm.

I

In 1957, Lowe filed a formal application for homestead entry with the Bureau of Land Management (the Bureau) for 160 acres of land, which included the 22 1/2-acre parcel at issue here. In 1959, before any homestead patent issued, the 22 1/2-acre parcel was conveyed to McIntyre. McIntyre has resided on the parcel continuously since that time.

In 1962, the Bureau rejected the segment of Lowe's application covering McIntyre's 22 1/2-acre parcel because three separate power-site classifications had withdrawn the land from homestead entry and the Bureau had never restored it to entry.

Page 1410

McIntyre appealed the decision to the Bureau's Branch of Land Appeals, which affirmed the decision after concluding that the parcel had not been available for homestead entry when Lowe filed his application for entry and, therefore, that McIntyre's claim as a successor to Lowe's interest was fatally defective. McIntyre then appealed to the Secretary of the Interior, who, on March 11, 1964, rejected his claim in a final secretarial decision.

In 1967, McIntyre filed a petition for restoration of his property with the Bureau, and a separate application with the Federal Power Commission. Both were denied. Successive administrative appeals in 1968 also were unsuccessful.

In 1970, the government served McIntyre with a notice of trespass and a notice to remove unauthorized structures, but took no further enforcement action against him.

In 1974, pursuant to section 12 of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, 43 U.S.C. Sec. 1611(a), Eklutna, Inc. (Eklutna) applied for the surface estate of the 22 1/2-acre parcel. In 1979, the Bureau approved Eklutna's application. McIntyre received personal notification of the Bureau's intent to convey the surface estate of the 22 1/2-acre parcel to Eklutna. McIntyre appealed the Bureau's decision to the Alaska Native Claims Appeal Board, which rejected the appeal. The Bureau then issued patents to Eklutna for the surface estate and to Cook Inlet Region, Inc. for the subsurface estate of the 22 1/2-acre parcel.

In 1979, McIntyre filed a complaint in federal district court. The district court vacated the decision of the Alaska Native Claims Appeal Board and remanded the case to the Interior Board of Land Appeals,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
42 practice notes
  • Carter v. U.S. Dep't of Def., No. CIV 16-0786 JB/SMV
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 10th Circuit. District of New Mexico
    • 28 Febrero 2017
    ...a specified period of time, strict compliance with that condition is a jurisdictional prerequisite. See, e.g., McIntyre v. United States, 789 F.2d 1408, 1411 (9th Cir. 1986) (action to quiet title against U.S., 28 U.S.C. § 2409a(f)); Clifton v. Heckler, 755 F.2d 1138, 1144-1145 (5th Cir. 19......
  • Duval Ranching Co. v. Glickman, No. CV-N-95-38-ECR.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (3rd Circuit)
    • 14 Marzo 1997
    ...(emphasis in Gardner). In particular, the APA cannot be used to challenge title to realty claimed by the United States. McIntyre v. U.S., 789 F.2d 1408, 1410-11 (9th Cir.1986). Thus, to the extent this action requires us to adjudicate title disputes, failure to sue under the Quiet Title Act......
  • Adams v. US, No. CV-S-86-548-PMP.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. District of Nevada
    • 19 Mayo 1988
    ...at 286, 103 S.Ct. 1811, quoted in Fadem, at 791 F.2d 1382. 4 Under circumstances similar to this action, in McIntyre v. United States, 789 F.2d 1408 (9th Cir.1986), the Ninth Circuit upheld the district court's dismissal of the plaintiff/appellant's quiet title action and entry of a Fed.R.C......
  • Executive Risk Indem. v. Pacific Educational Serv., Civ. No. 05-00727 SOM/LEK.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Hawaii
    • 25 Agosto 2006
    ...to `prevent piecemeal appeals in cases which should be reviewed only as single units.'" Id. at 797-98 (quoting McIntyre v. United States, 789 F.2d 1408, 1410 (9th Executive Risk provides no argument as how Rule 54(b) certification "will aid `expeditious decision' of the case." See id. This ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
44 cases
  • Carter v. U.S. Dep't of Def., No. CIV 16-0786 JB/SMV
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 10th Circuit. District of New Mexico
    • 28 Febrero 2017
    ...a specified period of time, strict compliance with that condition is a jurisdictional prerequisite. See, e.g., McIntyre v. United States, 789 F.2d 1408, 1411 (9th Cir. 1986) (action to quiet title against U.S., 28 U.S.C. § 2409a(f)); Clifton v. Heckler, 755 F.2d 1138, 1144-1145 (5th Cir. 19......
  • Duval Ranching Co. v. Glickman, No. CV-N-95-38-ECR.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. District of Nevada
    • 14 Marzo 1997
    ...(emphasis in Gardner). In particular, the APA cannot be used to challenge title to realty claimed by the United States. McIntyre v. U.S., 789 F.2d 1408, 1410-11 (9th Cir.1986). Thus, to the extent this action requires us to adjudicate title disputes, failure to sue under the Quiet Title Act......
  • Adams v. US, No. CV-S-86-548-PMP.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. District of Nevada
    • 19 Mayo 1988
    ...at 286, 103 S.Ct. 1811, quoted in Fadem, at 791 F.2d 1382. 4 Under circumstances similar to this action, in McIntyre v. United States, 789 F.2d 1408 (9th Cir.1986), the Ninth Circuit upheld the district court's dismissal of the plaintiff/appellant's quiet title action and entry of a Fed.R.C......
  • Executive Risk Indem. v. Pacific Educational Serv., Civ. No. 05-00727 SOM/LEK.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Hawaii
    • 25 Agosto 2006
    ...piecemeal appeals in cases which should be reviewed only as single units.'" Id. at 797-98 (quoting McIntyre v. United States, 789 F.2d 1408, 1410 (9th Executive Risk provides no argument as how Rule 54(b) certification "will aid `expeditious decision' of the case." See id. Th......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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