v.
United States
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION AUG 6 2021 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
THOMAS G. LANDRETH, No. 20-35683
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 3:20-cv-05333-RBL v. MEMORANDUM* UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington Ronald B. Leighton, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted August 4, 2021** San Francisco, California Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, and HAWKINS and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.
Plaintiff Thomas Landreth appeals the district court’s dismissal of his action against Quinault Indian Nation (QIN) and the United States regarding ownership of
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Lake Quinault on jurisdictional and sovereign immunity grounds.[1] We review such a dismissal de novo, Clinton v. Babbitt, 180 F.3d 1081, 1086 (9th Cir. 1999), and we affirm. Because the parties are familiar with the history of this case, we need not recount it here. I The district court properly dismissed Landreth’s claims against the United States because they did not fall under any congressional waiver of the United States’ sovereign immunity. See Roberts v. United States, 498 F.2d 520, 525 (9th Cir. 1974), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 1070 (1974). Landreth’s quiet title claim falls outside the scope of the Quiet Title Act’s (QTA) immunity waiver because it concerns Indian trust land. See Alaska Dep’t of Nat. Res. v. United States, 816 F.3d 580, 585 (9th Cir. 2016) (“The Indian lands exception applies if the federal government has a ‘colorable claim’ that the lands in question are trust or restricted Indian lands.”); Quinaielt Tribe of Indians v. United States, 102 Ct. Cl. 822, 832–35 (1945) (finding that Lake Quinault is within QIN’s reservation). The district court also correctly reasoned that QTA’s twelve-year statute of limitations had elapsed before Landreth filed suit, because QIN’s repeated closure of the lake in the 20th century should have put Landreth’s predecessor on notice of the United States’ claim to the lake.[2] 28 U.S.C. § 2409a(g).
[*2]The district court correctly determined that it lacked jurisdiction over Landreth’s tort claims against the United States because Landreth did not administratively exhaust the claims, as required under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA). See 28 U.S.C. § 2675; Brady v. United States, 211 F.3d 499, 502 (9th Cir. 2000).
Likewise, the United States Court of Federal Claims has exclusive jurisdiction over Landreth’s non-tort claims for money damages because he requested an award of over $10,000.3 See 28 U.S.C. § 1491; 28 U.S.C. § 1346(a)(2); Munns v. Kerry, 782 F.3d 402, 413–14 (9th Cir. 2015).
Landreth has not articulated any other cognizable claims against the United States with sufficient clarity to provide notice to the defendant of their nature or permit adjudication.[4] The district court therefore properly dismissed Landreth’s action against the United States.
[*3]II
The district court correctly dismissed Landreth’s claims against QIN on sovereign immunity grounds. Federally recognized tribes such as QIN are immune from suit absent an explicit waiver or congressional abrogation, neither of which is present in this case.[5] Santa Clara Pueblo v. Martinez, 436 U.S. 49, 58 (1978).
AFFIRMED.
[*4]