Cheyenne Arapaho Tribes of Oklahoma v. United States

385 U.S. App. D.C. 76 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (D.C. Cir. 2009) · United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit · March 17, 2009 · No. No. 07-5399

Summary

The D.C. Circuit affirmed dismissal of the Cheyenne Arapaho Tribes’ quiet-title action concerning land associated with Fort Reno. The court held that the Quiet Title Act’s twelve-year statute of limitations barred the action and that the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying jurisdictional discovery. The court did not reach the alternative issue of whether a prior Indian Claims Commission settlement independently barred the action.

Court
United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
Writing for the Court
Circuit Judge Griffith; Chief Judge Sentelle; Circuit Judge Rogers
Jurisdiction
Federal
Decision date
March 17, 2009
Docket number
No. 07-5399
Procedural posture
The Tribes appealed the dismissal of their Quiet Title Act action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and the denial of their request for jurisdictional discovery under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(f).
Standard of review
The denial of jurisdictional discovery was reviewed for abuse of discretion; the court addressed the district court's subject matter jurisdiction under the Quiet Title Act.
Precedential value
published precedential opinion
Parties
Cheyenne Arapaho Tribes of Oklahoma v. United States of America, Federal appellees
Disposition
affirmed

Topics

indian affairsquiet titlesubject matter jurisdictionstatute of limitationsappellate procedure

Practice areas

Indian affairsfederal sovereign immunityquiet titlereal propertysubject matter jurisdictionstatute of limitationsappellate procedure

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the district court abused its discretion by denying the Tribes' request for jurisdictional discovery concerning the timing of accrual of their alleged reversionary interest.
  2. Whether the Tribes' Quiet Title Act action was barred by the Act's twelve-year statute of limitations.
  3. Whether later or continuing military uses could restart the Quiet Title Act limitations period by constituting a new adverse claim or by showing abandonment of the United States' interest.

Holdings

  1. The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying jurisdictional discovery because the Tribes failed to identify specific facts that additional discovery could produce that would alter the jurisdictional analysis.
  2. A Quiet Title Act action accrues when the plaintiff knew or should have known that the United States claimed an interest adverse to the plaintiff, not only when the plaintiff's asserted reversionary interest formally vested.
  3. Evidence of partial military use or possible future military use would not alter the limitations analysis where the United States had already abandoned exclusive military use and asserted an adverse property interest through official congressional action.

Key quotations

Because the Tribes fail to specify what facts discovery could produce that would alter the jurisdictional analysis, we hold that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the Tribes' discovery request. (595)
Knowledge of the claim's full contours is not required. All that is necessary is a reasonable awareness that the Government claims some interest adverse to the plaintiff's. (596)
The district court thus was well within its discretion to deny the Tribes' discovery request. (598)

Factual background

In 1869, the United States designated a large reservation for the Cheyenne and Arapaho Tribes, and in 1883 an executive order set aside 9,493 acres for Fort Reno for military purposes exclusively. Congress transferred 1,000 acres to the Department of Justice in 1937 and the remaining 8,493 acres to the Department of Agriculture in 1948 for nonmilitary uses. The Tribes later settled Indian Claims Commission claims concerning the reservation lands for $15 million in 1965, but filed a new quiet-title action in 2006 asserting that the Fort Reno property was outside the 1891 cession and that a reversionary interest had vested.

Procedural history

The Tribes filed a 2006 action in the District Court for the District of Columbia seeking to quiet title to land associated with Fort Reno and asserting a reversionary interest. The district court denied the Tribes' discovery request, dismissed the action as barred by the Quiet Title Act's twelve-year statute of limitations, and alternatively concluded that a prior Indian Claims Commission settlement barred the action. The court of appeals affirmed the denial of discovery and the jurisdictional dismissal without reaching the settlement issue.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…

More from DC Circuit