Court Description: ORDER granting 50 Renewed Partial Motion to Dismiss. Defendant shall file its answer to the Second Amended Complaint within 14 days of the date of this order. Revised Scheduling and Planning Conference Report due within 21 days. See Order for details. Signed by Judge Sharon L. Gleason on 11/1/2024. (SCD, COURT STAFF)
State of Alaska v. United States of America Doc. 68 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA STATE OF ALASKA, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Case No. 3:22-cv-00103-SLG Defendant. ORDER RE RENEWED PARTIAL MOTION TO DISMISS Before the Court at Docket 50 is Defendant United States of America’s (“United States”) Renewed Partial Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiff State of Alaska (“State”) responded in opposition at Docket 58, to which the United States replied at Docket 59. Oral argument on the motion was held on October 11, 2024.
This case concerns an action brought by the State pursuant to the Quiet Title Act (“QTA”), 28 U.S.C. § 2409a, seeking to quiet title against the United States to submerged lands (the “Subject Submerged Lands”) underlying portions of waterbodies located in and around Lake Clark National Park and Preserve, namely, the Twin Lakes, the Chilikadrotna River, Turquoise Lake, and the Mulchatna River (the “Subject Waters”).
The State also seeks declaratory relief pursuant to the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201. In 1972, pursuant to the Alaska Statehood Act (“Statehood Act”), the State selected for conveyance from the federal government to the State a group of public lands located in townships that include the Subject Waters. The State’s selection included submerged lands beneath the Chilikadrotna River in three particular townships that the United States refers to as the “Undisputed Lands.” The State reasserted its selection of the Three Township Submerged Lands on two separate occasions in 1981 and 1993. These selections were subject to a general disclaimer that excluded submerged lands and shorelands that underlie nontidal waters which were navigable under laws of the United States at the time of Alaska’s admission to the Union.
The State maintains that BLM’s “erroneous” navigability determination of the Chilikadrotna River in 1983 and the resulting 2007 patent “cast a cloud on the rights and title of the State.” The State seeks a “declaration from this Court confirming that title to the [Three Township Submerged Lands] vested in the State under the equal footing doctrine.”
This declaration would remedy the improper reduction of the State’s entitlement and the improper reservation to the United States on the Three Township Submerged Lands as provided in the 2007 patent.
The Court first addresses consideration of the United States’ exhibits submitted in support of its renewed partial motion to dismiss before addressing the substantive aspects of the motion. Judicial notice under Federal Rule of Evidence 201 permits a court to notice an adjudicative fact if it is “not subject to reasonable dispute.”
A lack of subject matter jurisdiction, including lack of jurisdiction on sovereign immunity grounds, necessitates dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1). If a document merely creates a defense to the well-pled allegations in the complaint, then that document does not necessarily form the basis of the complaint. The State urges the Court to disregard the exhibits filed by the United States in support of its renewed partial motion to dismiss.
The State contends that the documents were not “lawfully issued” and did not “correctly determine[] the navigability status of the Subject Waters” and that the Court therefore “cannot take judicial notice of disputed facts contained in such public records.”
The Court takes judicial notice of the remaining exhibits because they are “matters of public record.” The remaining exhibits are all either official correspondence between the State and DOI or official agency determinations. To survive a motion to dismiss [under Rule 12(b)(6)], a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’
The Court finds that further discovery is unnecessary to the resolution of the instant motion and so denies the State’s request for additional discovery.
The Court finds that the United States has not waived its sovereign immunity under the QTA, and that the Court lacks jurisdiction over the State’s claim as to the Three Township Submerged Lands. Because the Court lacks jurisdiction over this claim, the Court does not reach the United States’ alternative argument that the QTA’s statute of limitations bars the State’s QTA claim. The State maintains that the United States’ “continued assertion of a legally infirm easement embodies the dispute.”
The State’s QTA challenge appears to be a de facto challenge to BLM’s 1983 navigability determination of the Chilikadrotna River and the resulting 2007 patent issuance conveying the Three Township Submerged Lands from the United States to the State.
Because the State may not bring an APA claim as to the chargeability of the Three Township Submerged Lands at this time, neither may it bring a challenge under the DJA for the same claim, as the State has not established that “jurisdiction already exists in the court”—here, through the APA.
In light of the foregoing, IT IS ORDERED that the United States’ Renewed Partial Motion to Dismiss at Docket 50 is GRANTED. The State’s Quiet Title Act claim as to the Three Township Submerged Lands is DISMISSED without prejudice.
The State’s Declaratory Judgment Act claim is DISMISSED with prejudice.
The United States shall file its answer to the Second Amended Complaint within 14 days of the date of this order.
DATED this 1st day of November 2024, at Anchorage, Alaska.
/s/ Sharon L. Gleason
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
**Interview with Legal Expert on Alaska v. United States**
**Interviewer:** Welcome, Dr. Emily Carson, a legal scholar specializing in federal land use and property rights. Today we’re discussing an intriguing case, *State of Alaska v. United States*, centered around the Quiet Title Act. Can you provide us with a brief overview of what’s at stake in this lawsuit?
**Dr. Carson:** Thank you for having me. This case involves the State of Alaska seeking to establish ownership over certain submerged lands in waters within Lake Clark National Park and Preserve. The State argues that these lands are rightfully theirs under the “equal footing doctrine,” which holds that states have the same rights to their lands as when they entered the Union.
**Interviewer:** That’s fascinating! The State is contending with the United States’ navigability determination that they believe undermines their claim, correct?
**Dr. Carson:** Exactly. The Alaska Statehood Act granted the State the right to select lands, but the U.S. has maintained that certain underwater lands are federally reserved due to navigability, established in an earlier 1983 determination. Alaska disputes this and seeks a court declaration to confirm their ownership and rectify what they perceive as an improper reservation.
**Interviewer:** Recently, the court granted a renewed partial motion to dismiss filed by the U.S. Do you think this sets a significant precedent for similar cases?
**Dr. Carson:** It may well do so. The ruling suggests that the court found a lack of jurisdiction regarding the claim on the submerged lands due to sovereign immunity under the Quiet Title Act. If upheld, this could impact future claims by states against federal determinations of land rights.
**Interviewer:** Can you break down what “sovereign immunity” means in this context?
**Dr. Carson:** Sovereign immunity is a legal doctrine that protects the federal government from being sued without its consent. In the context of this case, the court determined that the U.S. had not waived its sovereign immunity concerning these submerged lands, effectively limiting the State’s options for legal recourse.
**Interviewer:** The court also referenced the need for a sufficient factual basis in the complaint. What does that imply for Alaska’s position moving forward?
**Dr. Carson:** This means that Alaska will have to present compelling evidence and legal arguments to support their claim if they plan to appeal or pursue further legal action. The court’s dismissal on those grounds indicates that Alaska must strengthen its case, particularly around the navigability assessments made by the U.S.
**Interviewer:** In light of this ruling, what implications does this have for Native land rights or other similar cases across the nation?
**Dr. Carson:** It highlights a broader issue of state versus federal rights over land and resources. In states with significant federal land holdings, questions about navigability and ownership of submerged lands could be pivotal. It could also resonate with Indigenous land claims, where federal policies historically undermined Native rights to land.
**Interviewer:** Thank you, Dr. Carson, for your insight! It’s clear that *Alaska v. United States* is a case to watch, not only for its immediate implications but also for its larger impact on land rights nationwide.
**Dr. Carson:** Thank you for having me. It’s certainly an important and evolving area of law.
