Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Thomas G. LANDRETH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
MEMORANDUM **
Plaintiff Thomas Landreth appeals the district court's dismissal of his action against Quinault Indian Nation (QIN) and the United States regarding ownership of 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, 95 S.Ct. 656, 42 L.Ed.2d 665 (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).
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.
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, 98 S.Ct. 1670, 56 L.Ed.2d 106 (1978).
AFFIRMED.
FOOTNOTES
1. Landreth's motion to file a replacement reply brief and his motion to attach additional documents to that brief are granted. Landreth's remaining pending motions are denied as unnecessary.
2. We decline to consider Landreth's argument, raised for the first time on appeal, that this case is a dispute over federal reserved water rights covered by the immunity waiver contained in the McCarren Amendment. See El Paso City v. Am. W. Airlines, Inc. (In re Am. W. Airlines, Inc.), 217 F.3d 1161, 1165 (9th Cir. 2000).
3. We decline to consider Landreth's argument, raised for the first time on appeal, that the depredations clause of the Treaty of Olympia allows the district court to exceed the $10,000 cap. See El Paso City, 217 F.3d at 1165.
4. We decline to consider Landreth's argument invoking the judicial review provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) for the first time on appeal. See El Paso City, 217 F.3d at 1165.
5. We decline to consider Landreth's argument, raised for the first time on appeal, that QIN's waiver of immunity as part of a statutorily required insurance contract applies to his claims.
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: No. 20-35683
Decided: August 06, 2021
Court: United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)