Ken McMaster v. United States

Good Law
731 F.3d 881·2013 WL 5312561·2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 19523
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitSeptember 24, 201311-17489California10,229 words

Opinion

Opinion

Bybee, J.

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…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.