Boyle v. United States

• Court: District Court, D. Arizona
• Decided: August 22, 2025
• Docket: 4:25-cv-00444
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

9 Thomas G Boyle, Sr, No. CV-25-00444-TUC-SHR

10 Plaintiff, ORDER DISMISSING CASE

11 v.

12 United States of America,

13 Defendant. 14 15 16 On August 6, 2025, Plaintiff filed a “Complaint for Federal Stewardship 17 Determination,” asking the Court to, among other things, declare him the “federal steward” 18 of a parcel of “federal patent land . . . located in Arizona,” “[s]tay all proceedings in Pima 19 County Superior Court Case C20253183 pending federal determination,” and “[d]eclare 20 state courts lack jurisdiction over federal patent stewardship matters.” (Doc. 1.) Plaintiff 21 has also filed an “Emergency Motion for Temporary Restraining Order” (Doc. 2) and a 22 “Motion for Expedited Hearing on Federal Stewardship Determination” (Doc. 4). Plaintiff 23 asserts the Court has “exclusive subject matter jurisdiction” over the present action under 24 28 U.S.C. § 1331 because it involves federal land patent rights protected under 43 U.S.C. 25 § 945. (Doc. 1 at 3.) The Court will dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint for lack of subject matter 26 jurisdiction and deny the pending motions as moot. 27 Federal courts have limited jurisdiction, and limitations on the court’s jurisdiction 28 must neither be disregarded nor evaded. Owen Equip. & Erection Co. v. Kroger, 437 U.S. 1 365, 374 (1978). The Court is obligated to determine sua sponte whether it has subject 2 matter jurisdiction. See Valdez v. Allstate Ins. Co., 372 F.3d 1115, 1116 (9th Cir. 2004); 3 see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3) (“If the court determines at any time that it lacks subject- 4 matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action.”). The party asserting jurisdiction 5 bears the burden of proving its existence. Cook v. AVI Casino Enters., Inc., 548 F.3d 718, 6 722 (9th Cir. 2008). 7 Federal land patents do not provide a basis for federal question jurisdiction.1 Virgin 8 v. County of San Luis Obispo, 201 F.3d 1141, 1143 (9th Cir. 2000) (noting the view that 9 federal land patents do not confer federal question jurisdiction has been “repeatedly 10 reaffirmed by the Supreme Court, the Ninth Circuit, and other lower courts”); see Shulthis 11 v. McDougal, 225 U.S. 561, 570 (1912) (explaining it is well established that “a 12 controversy in respect of lands has never been regarded as presenting a Federal question 13 merely because one of the parties to it has derived his title under an act of Congress”). 14 Plaintiff provides no authority to the contrary. See Rivet v. Regions Bank of La., 522 U.S. 15 470, 475 (1998) (stating a federal question must be “presented on the face of the plaintiff’s 16 properly pleaded complaint” to establish jurisdiction under § 1331 (citation omitted)). 17 And, although Plaintiff names the United States as the defendant in this action, “federal 18 jurisdiction [cannot] be predicated merely on the fact that the United States is a party.” 19 Wells v. Long, 162 F.2d 842, 844 (9th Cir. 1947). Accordingly, 20 IT IS ORDERED Plaintiff's Complaint (Doc. 1) is DISMISSED for lack of 21 jurisdiction. 22 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED Plaintiff's Motions for Temporary Restraining 23 Order (Doc. 2) and for Expedited Hearing (Doc. 4) are DENIED AS MOOT.

24 1 In June 2025, Plaintiff removed to this Court a state-court quiet-title action and an application for confirmation of an arbitration award against him, citing 43 U.S.C. § 945 as 25 the basis for federal jurisdiction. (See Chuck and Ann Fina Family Revocable Trust Dated August 30, 1996 v. Boyle et al., Nos. 25-CV-00273-JCH, 25-CV-00274-SHR.) In both 26 cases, the Court advised Plaintiff federal land patents do not confer federal question jurisdiction and remanded the actions to state court. (Doc. 12 in No. 25-CV-00273-JCH; 27 Docs. 9, 12 in 25-CV-00274-SHR.) Should Plaintiff file any future lawsuits concerning the same or similar subject matter without a reasonable basis for jurisdiction above and 28 beyond § 945 and federal land patents, he may be subject to an appropriate sanction for filing a frivolous lawsuit. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 11. 1 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED the Clerk of Court shall close this case. 2 Dated this 22nd day of August, 2025. 3

5 Ai 6 United States District Judge 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

-3-