Bossart v. King County

Opinion

1 2 3

4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 7 ALICE BOSSART, RAYMOND BERRY, CASE NO. 2:24-cv-01776-JHC 8

ORDER RE: MOTION TO DISMISS 9 Plaintiffs, 10 v. 11 KING COUNTY, a political subdivision of the State of Washington, 12

13 Defendant. 14

15 I 16 INTRODUCTION 17 This matter comes before the Court on Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss under Rule 18 12(b)(1). Dkt. # 22; see Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1). The Court has considered the motion, 19 Plaintiffs’ response (Dkt. # 31), Defendant’s Reply (Dkt. # 34), the rest of the file, and the 20 governing law. As explained below, due to lack of subject matter jurisdiction, the Court 21 GRANTS the motion and DISMISSES this matter without prejudice. 22 // 23 // 24 1 II 2 DISCUSSION 3 “Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction,” and their jurisdiction is limited by the

4 Constitution and “those subjects encompassed within a statutory grant of jurisdiction.” 5 Richardson v. United States, 943 F.2d 1107, 1112 (9th Cir. 1991) (internal citation omitted). “In 6 civil cases, subject matter jurisdiction is generally conferred upon federal district courts either 7 through diversity jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1332, or federal question jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 8 1331.” Peralta v. Hisp. Bus., Inc., 419 F.3d 1064, 1068 (9th Cir. 2005). 9 Rule 12(b)(1) allows a party to seek dismissal of an action for lack of subject matter 10 jurisdiction and “the plaintiff bears the burden of establishing subject matter jurisdiction.” Id.; 11 Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1). If a court finds that subject matter jurisdiction does not exist, “the court 12 must dismiss the complaint in its entirety.” Arbaugh v. Y&H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 514 (2006).

13 In addition, “subject-matter jurisdiction, because it involves a court’s power to hear a case, can 14 never be forfeited or waived.” Id. (quoting United States v. Cotton, 535 U.S. 625, 630 (2002)). 15 Plaintiffs’ complaint maintains the Court has federal question jurisdiction under 28 16 U.S.C. § 1331, due to “material question about the extent and nature of rights, privileges, and 17 immunities derived from title to land conveyed via federal land patent pursuant to acts of 18 Congress[.]” Dkt. # 1 at 2. But “[f]ederal land patents and acts of Congress do not provide bases 19 for federal question jurisdiction.” Virgin v. Cnty. of San Luis Obispo, 201 F.3d 1141, 1143 (9th 20 Cir. 2000). This has been the law for more than a century: 21 A suit to enforce a right which takes its origin in the laws of the United States is not necessarily, or for that reason alone, one arising under those laws, for a suit 22 does not so arise unless it really and substantially involves a dispute or controversy respecting the validity, construction or effect of such a law, upon the determination 23 of which the result depends. This is especially so of a suit involving rights to land acquired under a law of the United States. If it were not, every suit to establish title 24 1 to land in the central and western states would so arise, as all titles in those states are traceable back to those laws. 2 Shulthis v. McDougal, 225 U.S. 561, 569–70 (1912). And the conclusion that federal land 3 patents do not confer federal question jurisdiction “has been repeatedly reaffirmed by the 4 Supreme Court, the Ninth Circuit, and other lower courts.” Virgin, 201 F.3d at 1143; see, 5 e.g., Oneida Indian Nation v. County of Oneida, 414 U.S. 661, 676–77 (1974) (“Once [a] patent 6 issues, the incidents of ownership are, for the most part, matters of local property law to be 7 vindicated in local courts, and in such situations it is normally insufficient for ‘arising under’ 8 jurisdiction merely to allege that ownership or possession is claimed under a United States 9 patent.”); Standage Ventures, Inc. v. Arizona, 499 F.2d 248, 249 (9th Cir. 1974) (“The complaint 10 does not allege expressly that any law of the United States is directly or indirectly involved in the 11 dispute; it is not alone enough that appellant’s title is traceable to such a law.”)). 12 Because federal land patents do not confer federal question jurisdiction, and there 13 is no other basis for federal question jurisdiction in the complaint, Plaintiffs have not met 14 their burden to establish the Court has federal question jurisdiction. And Plaintiffs do not 15 address diversity jurisdiction. See generally Dkt. # 1. So the Court concludes that it 16 lacks subject matter jurisdiction. 17 // 18 // 19 // 20 // 21 // 22 // 23 // 24 1 2 CONCLUSION 3 For all these reasons, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, Dkt. # 22, and 4 ||DISMISSES this matter without prejudice. The Court STRIKES as moot Plaintiffs’ Motion for 5 Summary Judgment, Dkt. # 10. 6 Dated this 23rd day of April, 2025. ' CToba 4. Chur 8 John H. Chun United States District Judge 9 10 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24