San Juan County, Utah v. United States (2014)

R.S. 2477 was “a standing offer of a free right of way over the public domain.” San Juan Cnty. v. United States, 754 F.3d 787, 791 (10th Cir.2014) (quoting S. Utah Wilderness Alliance (SUWA) v. Bureau of Land Mgmt., 425 F.3d 735, 741 (10th Cir.2005)).

And unless the United States waives its immunity, “the federal courts lack jurisdiction to hear claims against it.” San Juan Cnty. v. United States, 754 F.3d 787, 792 (10th Cir. 2014).

“The public need only accept it.” San Juan Cnty. v. United States, 754 F.3d 787, 791 (10th Cir. 2014).

Similarly, where the government closed a historical access road to a public right-of- way and a southern portion of the road but built a new access road through which the right-of-way remained accessible, the government’s activities did not constitute a claim adverse to the claimed right-of-way since the “public continued to have access to Salt Creek Road consistent with the claimed right-of-way.” San Juan Cnty. v. United States, 754 F.3d 787, 794, 796 (10th Cir. 2014).

San Juan Cty. v. United States, 754 F.3d 787, 796 (10th Cir. 2014).

The sole decision in which the Court, finds guidance is the Tenth Circuit’s decision of San Juan County v. United States, which addressed whether the QTA limitations period barred Utah’s claim to a right-of-way to use a road with the Canyonlands National Park. 754 F.3d 787, 790 (10th Cir. 2014).

The only notice sufficient to trigger the limitation period is notice of an adverse claim, San Juan Cnty. v. United States, 754 F.3d at 787, 795-96 (10th Cir. 2014), because when the plaintiff claims a non-possessory interest in property, such as a right-of-way, “knowledge of a government claim of ownership may be entirely consistent” with the plaintiff’s claim.

To the extent that Ellis attempts to generally object to Judge Stephens’s findings and conclusions in this section of the Report because Judge Stephens did not explicitly address this argument in his Report and Recommendation, the court considers it de novo. 17 Anderson v. City of Bessemer City, N.C., 470 U.S. 564, 572 (1985). 18 Id.; San Juan Cnty., Utah v. United States, 754 F.3d 787, at 796 (10th Cir. 2014). and Recommendation, such objections are improper.19 He does spec…

San Juan Cty., Utah v. United States, 754 F.3d 787, 792 (10th Cir. 2014).

“Unless the United States waives its sovereign immunity, thereby consenting to be sued, the federal courts lack jurisdiction to hear claims against it.” San Juan Cnty. v. United States, 754 F.3d 787, 792 (10th Cir. 2014).

San Juan Cnty. v. United States, 754 F.3d 787, 792 (10th Cir. 2014).

San Juan Cnty. v. United States, 754 F.3d 787, 792 (10th Cir. 2014).

San Juan Cnty. v. United States, 754 F.3d 787, 792 (10th Cir. 2014).

San Juan Cnty., Utah v. United States, 754 F.3d 787, 792 (10th Cir. 2014).

San Juan Cty. v. United States, 754 F.3d 787, 792 (10th Cir. 2014).

San Juan Cnty., Utah v. United States, 754 F.3d 787, 792 (10th Cir. 2014).

“Rather, [the state] must have taken some affirmative act to accept the grant represented by R.S. 2477.” Id. 11) In determining what is required for acceptance of a right-of-way under R.S. 2477, federal law “borrows” from principles of state law, but only to the extent that state law provides “convenient and appropriate principles for effectuating congressional intent.” S. Utah Wilderness All. v. Bureau of Land Mgmt., 425 F.3d 735, 768 (10th Cir. 2005), as amended on denial …

DISCUSSION “Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction; they are empowered to hear only those cases authorized and defined in the Constitution which have been entrusted to them under a jurisdictional grant by Congress.”20 “Unless the United States waives its sovereign immunity, thereby consenting to be sued, the federal courts lack jurisdiction to hear claims against it.”21 A plaintiff must “allege in [his] pleading the facts essential to show jurisdiction.”22 There i…

The only notice sufficient to trigger the limitation period is notice of an adverse claim, San Juan Cnty. v. United States, 754 F.3d at 787, 795-96 (10th Cir. 2014), because when the plaintiff claims a non-possessory interest in property, such as a mineral royalty, “knowledge of a government claim of ownership may be entirely consistent” with the plaintiff’s claim.

No. 94-579, § 706 (a), 90 Stat. 2743 , 2793. 3 San Juan Cty. v. United States, 754 F.3d 787, 791 (10th Cir. 2014) (citation omitted). 4 S. Utah Wilderness All. v. Bureau of Land Mgmt., 425 F.3d 735, 771 (10th Cir. 2005), as amended on denial of reh’g (Jan. 6, 2006). 3 GARFIELD CTY. v. UNITED STATES Opinion of the Court U.S.C. section 2409a (QTA).5 The QTA contains its own statute of limitations, providing state and county claimants twelve years to assert a claim once the cau…

In this regard, we have repeatedly held, in the context of civil actions to establish R.S. 2477 right-of-ways, that the Quiet Title Act (“QTA”), 28 U.S.C. § 2409a, is the “exclusive means by whic|i adverse claimants [can] challenge the United States’ title to real property.” Kane Cty. v. United States, 772 F.3d 1205, 1210 (10th Cir. 2014) (quoting Block v. North Dakota, 461 U.S. 273, 286 , 103 S.Ct. 1811 , 75 L.Ed.2d 840 (1983)); accord San Juan Cty. v. United States, 754 F.…

See San Juan Cnty., 754 F.3d at 794 .

See id.

Corp.), 385 F.3d 1279, 1286 (10th Cir.2004) (“Jurisdictional issues must be addressed first and, if they are resolved against jurisdiction, the case is at an end.”); see also San Juan Cty. v. United States, 754 F.3d 787, 792 (10th Cir.2014).

See id. at 797–99.

Discussion 7 The QTA’s twelve-year statute of limitations begins to run when a plaintiff’s right of 8 action accrues, namely “on the date the plaintiff or his predecessor in interest knew or should 9 have known of the claim of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2409a(g); see San Juan Cty., Utah v. 10 United States, 754 F.3d 787, 793 (10th Cir. 2014) (describing the requisite notice as the United 11 States’ expression “that it does not recognize (or will not continue to recogniz…

Stat. §§ 43-2-201 , 43-2-201.1); see, e.g., San Juan Cty., Utah v. United States, 754 F.3d 787, 790 (10th Cir. 2014) (county’s claim that a road was a public right-of-way was within the scope of the Quiet Title Act). 33 (4th Cir. 1995).

See also San Juan County, Utah v. United States, 754 F.3d 787, 792 (10th Cir.2014) (“The terms of the waiver [of sovereign immunity] ‘define [the] court’s jurisdiction to entertain the suit.’ ”) (quoting Meyer, 510 U.S. at 475 , 114 S.Ct. 996 ).