1 2 3 4 5 6 7 10 11 JAMES S. GRILL, No. 2:20-cv-641-TLN-JDP PS 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 THE UNITED STATES, and the U.S.D.A. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, 15 FOREST SERVICE, and Does 1-20, 16 Defendants. 17 18 Plaintiff seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915.1 His 19 declaration makes the showing required by 28 U.S.C. §1915(a)(1) and (2). See ECF No. 2. 20 Accordingly, the request to proceed in forma pauperisis granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). 21 Determining that plaintiff may proceed in forma pauperis does not complete the required 22 inquiry. Pursuant to § 1915(e)(2), the court must dismiss the caseat any time if it determines the 23 allegation of poverty is untrue, or if the action is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim on 24 which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief against an immune defendant. As discussed 25 below, plaintiff’s complaint potentially states a cognizable claim under the Quiet Title Act against 26 defendant United States, but his claim against defendant United States Department of 27 1 This case, in which plaintiff is proceeding in propria persona, was referred to the 28 undersigned under Local Rule 302(c)(21). See28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 1 Agriculture’s Forest Service (“Forest Service”) must be dismissed. 2 Although pro se pleadings are liberally construed, see Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 3 520-21 (1972), a complaint, or portion thereof, should be dismissed for failure to state a claim if it 4 fails to set forth “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. 5 Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 554, 562-63 (2007) (citing Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41 6 (1957)); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). “[A] plaintiff’s obligation to provide the ‘grounds’ of 7 his ‘entitlement to relief’ requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of 8 a cause of action’s elements will not do. Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to 9 relief above the speculative level on the assumption that all of the complaint’s allegations are 10 true.” Id. (citations omitted). Dismissal is appropriate based either on the lack of cognizable 11 legal theories or the lack of pleading sufficient facts to support cognizable legal theories. 12 Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990). 13 Under this standard, the court must accept as true the allegations of the complaint in 14 question, Hospital Bldg. Co. v. Rex Hosp. Trustees, 425 U.S. 738, 740 (1976), construe the 15 pleading in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, and resolve all doubts in the plaintiff’s favor, 16 Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421 (1969). A pro se plaintiff must satisfy the pleading 17 requirements of Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 8(a)(2) requires a 18 complaint to include “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled 19 to relief, in order to give the defendant fair notice of what the claim is and the grounds upon 20 which it rests.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (citing Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41 (1957)). 21 Plaintiff brings this action under the Quiet Title Act (“QTA”), 28 U.S.C. § 2409a, against 22 defendants United States of Americaand the Forest Service. Liberally construed, the complaint 23 alleges that in 1992, plaintiff purchased real property located in Nevada County, California. The 24 property, which is surrounded by land owned by Forest Service, is allegedly accessible by an 25 easement that crosses over Forest Service land. Plaintiff alleges that the easement is established 26 under (1) Revised Statute 2477, (2) the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act, 16 27 28 1 U.S.C. § 3101 et seq., and (3) the common law doctrine of easement by necessity.2 The Forest 2 Service previously granted plaintiffa special use permit to access to his property. Id. at 3, 20. 3 Plaintiffclaims, however, that the Forest Service subsequently revoked his permit and is denying 4 him access to his land. Id. at 1, 4. 5 For purposes of screening, these allegations potentially state acognizable claim against 6 the United States under the QTA. See28 U.S.C. § 2409a(d) (a complaint brought under the QTA 7 must set forth “the nature of the right, title, or interest which the plaintiff claims in the real 8 property, the circumstances under which it was acquired, and the right, title, or interest claimed 9 by the United States.”). 10 Plaintiff, however, cannot maintain his QTA claim against the Forest Service. The QTA 11 is the “exclusive means by which adverse claimants [can] challenge the United States’title to real 12 property,” and the act waives sovereign immunity only as to the United States. Block v. North 13 Dakota ex rel. Bd. of Univ. & Sch. Lands, 461 U.S. 273, 286 (1983); see28 U.S.C. § 2409a(a) 14 (“The United States may be named as a party defendant in a civil action under this section to 15 adjudicate a disputed title to real property in which the United States claims an interest.”). Thus, 16 the United States is the only proper defendant for plaintiff’s QTA claim. Accordingly, his claim 17 against the Forest Service must be dismissed without leave to amend. See Noll v. Carlson, 809 18 F.2d 1446, 1448 (9th Cir. 1987) (while the court ordinarily would permit a pro se plaintiff to 19 amend, leave to amend should not be granted where it appears amendment would be futile). 20 Accordingly,it is hereby ORDERED that: 21 1. Plaintiff’s complaint alleges, for screening purposes, a potentially cognizable claim 22 under the Quite Title Act against defendant United States of America. 23 2. The Clerk of Court shall send plaintiff one USM-285 form, one summons, a copy of 24 the complaint, this court’s scheduling order, and the forms providing notice of the magistrate 25 2 The complaint purports to allege three claims styled: (1) “Violation of Congressional Railroad Grant Act of 1982,” (2) Violation of Congressional RS 2477 Act of1866,” and (3) 26 “Violation of the Congressional ANILCA Act of 1980.” ECF No. 1 at 10-12. But each of 27 plaintiff’s claims merely articulates a distinct theory for why plaintiff allegedly has an easement over land owned by the government.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 10 11 JAMES S. GRILL, No. 2:20-cv-641-TLN-JDP PS 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 THE UNITED STATES, and the U.S.D.A. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, 15 FOREST SERVICE, and Does 1-20, 16 Defendants. 17 18 Plaintiff seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915.1 His 19 declaration makes the showing required by 28 U.S.C. §1915(a)(1) and (2). See ECF No. 2. 20 Accordingly, the request to proceed in forma pauperisis granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). 21 Determining that plaintiff may proceed in forma pauperis does not complete the required 22 inquiry. Pursuant to § 1915(e)(2), the court must dismiss the caseat any time if it determines the 23 allegation of poverty is untrue, or if the action is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim on 24 which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief against an immune defendant. As discussed 25 below, plaintiff’s complaint potentially states a cognizable claim under the Quiet Title Act against 26 defendant United States, but his claim against defendant United States Department of 27 1 This case, in which plaintiff is proceeding in propria persona, was referred to the 28 undersigned under Local Rule 302(c)(21). See28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 1 Agriculture’s Forest Service (“Forest Service”) must be dismissed. 2 Although pro se pleadings are liberally construed, see Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 3 520-21 (1972), a complaint, or portion thereof, should be dismissed for failure to state a claim if it 4 fails to set forth “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. 5 Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 554, 562-63 (2007) (citing Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41 6 (1957)); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). “[A] plaintiff’s obligation to provide the ‘grounds’ of 7 his ‘entitlement to relief’ requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of 8 a cause of action’s elements will not do. Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to 9 relief above the speculative level on the assumption that all of the complaint’s allegations are 10 true.” Id. (citations omitted). Dismissal is appropriate based either on the lack of cognizable 11 legal theories or the lack of pleading sufficient facts to support cognizable legal theories. 12 Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990). 13 Under this standard, the court must accept as true the allegations of the complaint in 14 question, Hospital Bldg. Co. v. Rex Hosp. Trustees, 425 U.S. 738, 740 (1976), construe the 15 pleading in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, and resolve all doubts in the plaintiff’s favor, 16 Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421 (1969). A pro se plaintiff must satisfy the pleading 17 requirements of Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 8(a)(2) requires a 18 complaint to include “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled 19 to relief, in order to give the defendant fair notice of what the claim is and the grounds upon 20 which it rests.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (citing Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41 (1957)). 21 Plaintiff brings this action under the Quiet Title Act (“QTA”), 28 U.S.C. § 2409a, against 22 defendants United States of Americaand the Forest Service. Liberally construed, the complaint 23 alleges that in 1992, plaintiff purchased real property located in Nevada County, California. The 24 property, which is surrounded by land owned by Forest Service, is allegedly accessible by an 25 easement that crosses over Forest Service land. Plaintiff alleges that the easement is established 26 under (1) Revised Statute 2477, (2) the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act, 16 27 28 1 U.S.C. § 3101 et seq., and (3) the common law doctrine of easement by necessity.2 The Forest 2 Service previously granted plaintiffa special use permit to access to his property. Id. at 3, 20. 3 Plaintiffclaims, however, that the Forest Service subsequently revoked his permit and is denying 4 him access to his land. Id. at 1, 4. 5 For purposes of screening, these allegations potentially state acognizable claim against 6 the United States under the QTA. See28 U.S.C. § 2409a(d) (a complaint brought under the QTA 7 must set forth “the nature of the right, title, or interest which the plaintiff claims in the real 8 property, the circumstances under which it was acquired, and the right, title, or interest claimed 9 by the United States.”). 10 Plaintiff, however, cannot maintain his QTA claim against the Forest Service. The QTA 11 is the “exclusive means by which adverse claimants [can] challenge the United States’title to real 12 property,” and the act waives sovereign immunity only as to the United States. Block v. North 13 Dakota ex rel. Bd. of Univ. & Sch. Lands, 461 U.S. 273, 286 (1983); see28 U.S.C. § 2409a(a) 14 (“The United States may be named as a party defendant in a civil action under this section to 15 adjudicate a disputed title to real property in which the United States claims an interest.”). Thus, 16 the United States is the only proper defendant for plaintiff’s QTA claim. Accordingly, his claim 17 against the Forest Service must be dismissed without leave to amend. See Noll v. Carlson, 809 18 F.2d 1446, 1448 (9th Cir. 1987) (while the court ordinarily would permit a pro se plaintiff to 19 amend, leave to amend should not be granted where it appears amendment would be futile). 20 Accordingly,it is hereby ORDERED that: 21 1. Plaintiff’s complaint alleges, for screening purposes, a potentially cognizable claim 22 under the Quite Title Act against defendant United States of America. 23 2. The Clerk of Court shall send plaintiff one USM-285 form, one summons, a copy of 24 the complaint, this court’s scheduling order, and the forms providing notice of the magistrate 25 2 The complaint purports to allege three claims styled: (1) “Violation of Congressional Railroad Grant Act of 1982,” (2) Violation of Congressional RS 2477 Act of1866,” and (3) 26 “Violation of the Congressional ANILCA Act of 1980.” ECF No. 1 at 10-12. But each of 27 plaintiff’s claims merely articulates a distinct theory for why plaintiff allegedly has an easement over land owned by the government. Accordingly, the court construes the complaint as only 28 asserting one claim under the QTA. 1 judge’s availability to exercise jurisdiction for all purposes. 2 3. Plaintiff is advised that the U.S. Marshal will require: 3 a. One completed summons; 4 b. One completed USM-285 form for defendant United States of America; 5 c. A copy of the complaint for defendant United States of America, with an extra 6 copy for the U.S. Marshal; and 7 d. A copy of this court’s scheduling order and related documents for defendant. 8 4. Plaintiff shall supply the United States Marshal, within 14 days from the date this order 9 is filed, all information needed by the Marshal to effect service of process, and shall, within 14 10 days thereafter, file a statement with the court that said documents have been submitted to the 11 United States Marshal. 12 5. The U.S. Marshal shall serve process, with copies of this court’s scheduling order and 13 related documents, within 90 days of receipt of the required information from plaintiff, without 14 prepayment of costs. The United States Marshal shall, within 14 days thereafter, file a statement 15 with the court that said documents have been served. If the U.S. Marshal is unable, for any 16 reason, to effect service of process on defendant, the Marshal shall promptly report that fact, and 17 the reasons for it, to the court. 18 6. The Clerk of Court shall serve a copy of this order on the United States Marshal, 501 19 “I” Street, Sacramento, CA 95814 (tel. 916-930-2030). 20 7. Failure to comply with this order may result in a recommendation that this action be 21 dismissed for failure to prosecute and/or comply with court orders. 22 Further, it is RECOMMENDED that plaintiff’s claim against defendant Forest Service be 23 dismissed without leave to amend. 24 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 25 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days 26 after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 27 objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 28 “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Failure to file objections wOAOe 2 CUVEE ERIN VR MMU PR ee YY VI
1 || within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v. 2 || Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. YIst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 3 || Dated: October 5, 2020 WN pana Caton _ 5 STATE GISTRATE JUDGE 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28