Mills et al v. United States of America et al

Filing 218

ORDER Denying Motion to Clarify Issues at Docket 201 and Granting Motion to Amend Complaint at Docket 205 . Plaintiff's Fourth Amended Complaint shall be filed and served on or before August 8, 2014. (Jan, Chambers Staff)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF ALASKA
CAREY MILLS,
Case No. 4:10-cv-00033-RRB
Plaintiff
ORDER REGARDING
MOTIONS AT DOCKETS 201, 205

vs.
SCOTT WOOD; DOYON LIMITED;
and HUNGWITCHIN CORPORATION,
Defendants.

I. PENDING MOTIONS
At Docket 201 Defendant Doyon Limited has moved for an order clarifying the
issues remaining on remand. Both Scott Wood and Hungwitchin Corporation have joined
in the motion.1 Plaintiff Carey Wood has opposed the motion2 and the moving parties have
replied.3
At Docket 205 Plaintiff has moved for leave to file an amended complaint. Doyon
and Hungwitchin have opposed the motion4 and Plaintiff has replied.5
Both motions have been fully briefed. No party has requested oral argument and this
Court has determined that oral argument would not materially assist the Court in deciding
1

Dockets 202 (Hungwitchin); 203 (Wood).

2

Docket 204.

3

Dockets 206 (Doyon); 207 (Hungwitchin).

4

Dockets 212 (Doyon); 213 (Hungwitchin).

5

Docket 215.

ORDER REGARDING MOTIONS AT DOCKETS 201, 205 – 1
Mills v. Wood, 4:10-cv-00033-RRB

the issues presented. Accordingly, the matters are submitted for decision on the moving
and opposing papers.
II. BACKGROUND/ISSUES PRESENTED
This Court dismissed this action without leave to amend. On appeal, in a published
decision, the Ninth Circuit affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for proceedings
consistent with its decision.6
In its motion, Doyon seeks a determination by the Court that the only remaining
issue before this Court is whether or not Mills has a private right of access based upon a
theory of an easement by necessity or implication over the property of the Defendants. At
the time Doyon filed its motion, the Third Amended Complaint set forth five separate
claims: (1) judicial recognition of an R.S. 2477 right-of-way over the entire Fortymile
Station–Eagle Trail; (2) an easement by implication or necessity to access his mining
claims; (3) a right-of-way over the mining claim held by Wood; (4) invalidation of Wood’s
mining claim; and (5) damages.
Subsequently, Plaintiff filed his motion for leave to file an Amended Complaint in
which he asserts two causes of action: (1) a declaratory determination the Fortymile
Station-Eagle Trail is subject to a valid R.S. 2477 right-of-way; and (2) for compensatory
and punitive damages resulting from the denial of access to his mining claims along the
Fortymile Trail.

6

Mills v. United States, 742 F.3d 400 (9th Cir. 2014).

ORDER REGARDING MOTIONS AT DOCKETS 201, 205 – 2
Mills v. Wood, 4:10-cv-00033-RRB

As relevant to the motions before the court, the Ninth Circuit held:
Accordingly, we conclude that the flexible prudential standing doctrine
does not bar a legal action by landowners asserting an interest in accessing
their own property over an alleged R.S. 2477 route.
Here, Mills brings precisely that sort of claim: he seeks a declaration
that he may use a right-of-way over private property to access his own
property interests. If successful, Mills's suit would prevent Doyon,
Hungwitchin and Wood from barring Mills's access or suing him for trespass,
but would not be binding on the federal government. Nor would it place
additional burdens on Alaska, as Doyon argues. Alaska has already stated
in a statute that it “claims, occupies, and possesses” the R.S. 2477 right-ofway in the Fortymile Trail, Alaska Stat. § 19.30.400(a), (d), and Doyon does
not explain why Alaska would have any additional maintenance obligations
if Mills succeeded on the merits of his action.
Because Mills asserts his own right to use the Fortymile Trail to
access his state mining claims, his action may not be dismissed on
prudential standing grounds. Accordingly, we need not consider Mills's claim
that he could assert the rights of Alaska to the Fortymile Trail either as a
member of the public or as a private attorney general. We therefore reverse
the district court's dismissal of Mills's claims against Woods, Doyon, and
Hungwitchin, and remand for proceedings consistent with this opinion.7
III. DISCUSSION
At the outset this Court must determine the extent to which the law of the case or
the rule of mandate preclude this Court from determining Plaintiff’s claims.
The law of the case doctrine, a judicial invention, aims to promote the
efficient operation of the courts. It generally preludes a court from
reconsidering an issue decided previously by the same court or by a higher
court in the identical case. The issue in question must have been decided
explicitly or by necessary implication in the previous disposition. Application
of the doctrine is discretionary. We therefore review the district court's
decision for abuse of discretion.
The rule of mandate is similar to, but broader than, the law of the case
doctrine. A district court that has received the mandate of an appellate court
cannot vary or examine that mandate for any purpose other than executing
it. At the same time, the rule of mandate allows a lower court to decide
7

Id., 742 F.3d at 408.

ORDER REGARDING MOTIONS AT DOCKETS 201, 205 – 3
Mills v. Wood, 4:10-cv-00033-RRB

anything not foreclosed by the mandate. A district court is limited by our
remand when the scope of the remand is clear. Violation of the rule of
mandate is a jurisdictional error. 8
The Court disagrees with Doyon that the decision of the Ninth Circuit has removed
the issue of the existence of an R.S. 2477 trail over the Fortymile Station–Eagle Trail from
consideration in this case. Indeed, the very heart of the Ninth Circuit’s decision, by which
this Court is bound, is that Plaintiff may assert his individual rights to the use of the R.S.
2477 Fortymile Station–Eagle Trail to the extent it crosses the Defendants’ surface estates.
Of course, in order for Plaintiff to have any rights to use it, an R.S. 2477 right-of-way over
the Fortymile Station–Eagle Trail must exist. Therefore, as a threshold issue Plaintiff must
establish the existence of the trail.
The Court also rejects the argument that Plaintiff’s R.S. 2477 claim is foreclosed by
the fact that the surface estates held by the Defendants does not encompass the entire
length of the Fortymile Station–Eagle Trail. It does not appear from the record that any
other private party holds an interest in the surface estate traversed by the Fortymile
Station–Eagle Trail. As noted by the Ninth Circuit, the United States does not expressly
dispute the existence of an R.S. 2477 right-of-way, and the State of Alaska has
affirmatively claimed ownership of an R.S. 2477 right-of-way over the Fortymile
Station–Eagle Trail. The sole remaining parties asserting a claim adverse to Plaintiff are
the Defendants. A decision by this Court favorable to the Plaintiff would certainly not be
adverse to the interests of either the United States or the State of Alaska. On the other
8

Hall v. City of Los Angeles, 697 F.3d 1059, 1067 (9th Cir. 2012) (internal
citations and quotation marks omitted).
ORDER REGARDING MOTIONS AT DOCKETS 201, 205 – 4
Mills v. Wood, 4:10-cv-00033-RRB

hand, a decision by this Court adverse to Plaintiff, while perhaps contrary to the interests
of both governments, would not be binding on either of them.
IV. ORDER
Accordingly, based upon the foregoing, the Court ORDERS as follows::
1.

The Motion for Order Clarifying the Issues Remaining on Remand at Docket

201 is DENIED.
2.

Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend Complaint at Docket 205 is GRANTED. Plaintiff

shall entitle his proposed amended complaint the “Fourth Amended Complaint” and shall
file and serve the “Fourth Amended Complaint” on or before August 8, 2014.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 25th day of July, 2014.
/s/ RALPH R. BEISTLINE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

ORDER REGARDING MOTIONS AT DOCKETS 201, 205 – 5
Mills v. Wood, 4:10-cv-00033-RRB