United States v. State of Louisiana

• Decision Date: 24 April 1964
• Docket Number: Civ. A. No. 8607.
• Citation: 229 F. Supp. 14
• Parties: UNITED STATES of America v. STATE OF LOUISIANA and Humble Oil & Refining Company.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Western District of Louisiana

229 F. Supp. 14

UNITED STATES of America v. STATE OF LOUISIANA and Humble Oil & Refining Company.

Civ. A. No. 8607.

United States District Court W. D. Louisiana, Lafayette Division.

April 24, 1964.

Edward L. Shaheen, U. S. Atty., and D. H. Perkins, Asst. U. S. Atty., Shreveport, La., for plaintiff.

Jack P. F. Gremillion, Atty. Gen. of Louisiana, Edward M. Carmouche, John Madden, and Ernest Eldred, Asst. Attys. Gen., Baton Rouge, La., for State of Louisiana.

Liskow & Lewis, Lake Charles, La., and W. J. McAnelly, Jr., and Bernard J. Caillouet, New Orleans, La., for Humble Oil & Refining Co.

Henican, James & Cleveland, C. Ellis Henican, New Orleans, La., for intervenor, Exchange Oil Co.

PUTNAM, District Judge.

This suit was filed on December 13, 1961 by the United States at the request of the Secretary of the Interior. It is an action brought against the State of Louisiana and Humble Oil & Refining Company. Jurisdiction is alleged under the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 1345.

There is no question but what jurisdiction attaches under the statute cited above.

Exchange Oil, Inc., claiming an interest in the real estate which is the subject of the litigation under an oil, gas and mineral lease executed by the Bureau of Land Management of the Department of The Interior, was granted leave to intervene as a party plaintiff, on September 20, 1962.

In the complaint it is alleged that Lots Three, Four and Seven of Section 26, Township 14 South, Range 11 East, Louisiana Meridian, and Lots Nine, Ten Eleven and Twelve of Section 35, Township 14 South, Range 11 East, Louisiana Meridian, are and have been part of the public domain from the time of Louisiana Purchase in 1803 to the present; that said lots were reserved to the United States in the patent issued pursuant to Title 30 U.S.C. § 121 et seq., and are still owned by the United States.

It is further alleged that accretions have formed along portions of the lots in question that abut and abutted the navigable stream known as Duck Lake, in the parish of St. Martin, Louisiana; that Buck Lake is a navigable river or stream having a current of moving, siltbearing water and is a part of the system of waterways flowing continually from its source to the Gulf of Mexico. Title to the property and accretions hereinabove described is claimed by the United States. The prayer is for judgment declaring and decreeing its ownership of the disputed property and minerals therein adjoining Lots Three, Four and Seven of Section 26 and Lots Nine, Ten, Eleven and Twelve of Section 35, all in Township 14 South, Range 11 East, further declaring that the defendants have no right, title or interest whatsoever in the properties involved and minerals therein, and quieting title in the United States.

The government further prays for the cancellation of State Lease No. 711, granted by the State of Louisiana to Humble Oil & Refining Company, for an injunction restraining the defendants from asserting any rights, title or interest in and to the lands and minerals therein, and ordering defendants to account to plaintiff for all mineral revenues resulting from the production of oil and gas from certain production units in which the lands in question are situated.

The defendants in their answer make the following issues:

(1) That Duck Lake is not a navigable river or stream. (They contend rather that it is a navigable body of water and was such in 1812 when Louisiana was admitted to the Union, and that under the terms of the Act of Admission the bottoms and bed thereof vested in the State by virtue of its sovereignty. 2 Statutes at Large 701, April 8, 1812.)

(2) They deny that any accretions have formed in the area described in the complaint, and, if "accretions" have formed, they deny that title vested in the United States.

(3) They deny that any accretions are included in the area covered by the oil, gas and mineral lease known as State Lease No. 711 granted by the State to Humble Oil & Refining Company.

(4) They deny that any other lands included in such Lease No. 711 belong to the complainant as part of the public domain.

During the course of arguments made on various motions filed by the parties to this action it is clear to the Court that the State will contend that if there is any formation built up along the shore of Duck Lake (which they deny), it has formed an island and is not "accreted" land as claimed by the government and that title to the islands so formed vests in the State of Louisiana.

The matter is presently before the Court on a motion brought by the defendants on April 13, 1964, for a preliminary injunction against the United States pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a), it being alleged that such extraordinary relief is necessary to preserve the jurisdiction of the court and to prevent irreparable injury to the defendants by virtue of the official acts of the United States through the Bureau of Land Management and the Surveyor General of the Department of the Interior which these officers have taken in regard to the property which is the subject of this litigation. A hearing was had on this motion at which the undisputed facts as found by the Court are as follows:

(1) The United States, through the Bureau of Land Management, published a notice of filing of plat of dependent resurvey and accretion survey on Wednesday, March 25, 1964, in the Federal Register, Vol. 29, No. 59. It is asserted in this notice that the plat will be officially filed in the office of the Manager, Land Office, Bureau of Land Management, on April 27, 1964, setting forth that the lands "are open to application, location, selection, and petition under the public land laws".

(2) The plat mentioned in the above described notice of filing is attached to the defendants' motion for preliminary injunction and shows beyond question that the lands included in such survey include some, if not all, of the lands in dispute in this litigation. This is admitted by all parties.

The government's objection to the proceeding for a preliminary injunction was set forth in a motion to strike which was denied by the Court prior to the hearing for preliminary injunction. All objections were reserved and the application was considered. In support of its motion to strike, the United States pleaded its sovereign immunity from suit and a lack of jurisdiction in this court to grant the extraordinary relief prayed for by the defendants. They cite and rely upon numerous authorities wherein this principle is recognized and established. The decisions upon which they rely are as follows: United States v. Sanitary Dairy Products, Inc., 211 F.Supp. 185 (W.D.La.1962); Sanitary Dairy Products, Inc. v. Cook, 211 F.Supp. 183 (W.D. La.1962); Lynch v. United States, 292 U.S. 571, 54 S.Ct. 840, 78 L.Ed. 1434 (1933); Bryan v. United States, 99 F.2d 549 (10 Cir. 1938); Van Buskirk v. United States, 206 F.Supp. 553 (E.D.Tenn. 1962); Pflueger v. United States, 73 U.S. App.D.C. 364, 121 F.2d 732 (1941); Atlantic Meat Co. v. Reconstruction Finance Corp., 166 F.2d 51 (1 Cir. 1948); United States v. Dry Dock Sav. Institution, 149 F.2d 917 (2 Cir. 1945); United States v. Sherwood, 312 U.S. 584, 61 S.Ct. 767, 85 L.Ed. 1058 (1941); Land v. Dollar, 330 U.S. 731, 738, 67 S.Ct. 1009, 1012, 91 L.Ed. 1209 (1947); Larson v. Domestic & Foreign Commerce Corp., 337 U.S. 682, 69 S.Ct. 1457, 93 L.Ed. 1628 (1949); Belknap v. Schild, 161 U.S. 10, 16 S.Ct. 443, 40 L.Ed. 599 (1896); McAvoy v. United States, 178 F.2d 353 (2 Cir. 1949); City of Fresno v. Edmonston, 131 F.Supp. 421 (S.D.Calif.1955); Rank v. United States, 142 F.Supp. 1, 175 (S.D. Calif.1956); Dugan v. Rank, 372 U.S. 609, 83 S.Ct. 999, 10 L.Ed.2d 15 (1963); City of Fresno v. California, 372 U.S. 627, 83 S.Ct. 996, 10 L.Ed.2d 28 (1963); Kirwan v. Murphy, 189 U.S. 35, 23 S.Ct. 599, 47 L.Ed. 698 (1903).

In our opinion these cases are inapposite. This is not a suit brought against complainant or a situation where a new claim is sought to be interposed against the sovereign by way of counterclaim or motion. Were it such a case, the Court would not be vested with jurisdiction to entertain the claim so advanced in the absence of express statutory authority conferring the consent of the government to be sued. The present suit, however, was instituted by the United States and the Court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1345. The only question to be considered here is whether or not the general inherent power and authority of the Court recognized and codified in 28 U.S.C.A. § 1651(a), confers power upon us to issue the extraordinary writ of injunction to preserve and protect the status quo of property and parties to a suit validly pending before us.

With the adoption of the Judicial Code by Congress in 1948, 28 U.S.C.A. § 1345 was supplemented by the addition of the word "agency" in order to make clear that this section applied to actions by agencies of the government and to conform with special acts authorizing such actions. Further clarification is seen in the addition of the phrase "except as otherwise provided by Act of Congress" at the beginning of the section which, the revisers tell us, was inserted to make clear that jurisdiction existed generally in District Courts over suits brought by the government or governmental agencies in absence of special provisions conferring it elsewhere. (Reviser's Notes, Title 28 U.S.C. § 1345.) There is, therefore, no question but that we have jurisdiction of the main demand.

The cases are legion to the effect that where the United States, as a suitor, exercises its right to invoke the jurisdiction of the federal courts, it is subject to the same rules and is bound by the judgments and orders of the court to the same extent as any private party litigant. It takes the position of a private suitor so far as to agree, by implication at least, that complete justice may be done with regard to the subject matter, so long as public policy or...