Alaska v. United States

Good Law
64 F.3d 1352
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitSeptember 6, 1995No. 94-36176California2,906 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Wiggins, J.

The United States appeals interlocutorily from the district court’s order denying the *1354 United States’ motion to dismiss this action on the grounds of sovereign immunity. We hold that the collateral order doctrine does not allow immediate appeal of such an order, and we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

The State of Alaska brought this action to quiet title to sections of the beds of the Kandik, Nation, and Black Rivers. 1 The district court’s jurisdiction is premised on 28 U.S.C. §§ 1346 (f) and 2409a, which allow the United States to be named as a defendant in actions to quiet title to real property “in which the United States claims an interest.” Section 2409a(a). The United States, although it refused to disclaim title, sought dismissal of the suit on the grounds that it had never actively “claim[ed] an interest” in the river beds within the meaning of those sections, and, consequently, there had been no waiver of sovereign immunity. The district court denied the motion, finding that the United States claimed an interest in the land within the meaning of the statute. The United States immediately appealed the district court’s decision without seeking permission…

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.