Schema v. United States Department of Agriculture, et al.

Filing 23

FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 7/30/14 RECOMMENDING that this action be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Referred to Judge Morrison C. England, Jr; Objections due within 14 days after being served with these findings and recommendations. (Becknal, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

JOHN SCHEMA,

12
13
14
15

No. 2:14-cv-0630 MCE CKD PS
Plaintiff,

v.

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
AGRICULTURE, et al.,
Defendants.

16
17
18

Defendant’s motion to dismiss is pending before the court. By order filed June 26, 2014,

19

plaintiff was granted a second extension of time to July 16, 2014 to file opposition. Plaintiff

20

belatedly filed opposition and defendant United States has filed a reply. Upon review of the

21

documents in support and opposition, and good cause appearing, THE COURT FINDS AS

22

FOLLOWS:

23

In this action, plaintiff alleges claims arising out of the alleged impairment by

24

Forest Service personnel of an easement to which plaintiff claims right. Plaintiff seeks

25

compensation in the amount of $500,000 for the allegedly wrongful interference with plaintiff’s

26

property right. This court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the action because the United

27

States Court of Federal Claims has exclusive jurisdiction of any claim based solely on the

28

Constitution and which exceeds $10,000. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1346(a)(2), 1491. Plaintiff here claims
1

1

damages of $500,000, thus meeting the monetary requirement. The gravamen of plaintiff’s

2

complaint is that the actions of the United States constituted a taking of plaintiff’s property in

3

violation of the Fifth Amendment. Such a claim properly sounds in inverse condemnation, and

4

this court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over such a claim. See Myers v. United States, 323

5

F.2d 580, 583 (9th Cir. 1963); see also Munoz v. Mabus, 630 F.3d 856, 863 n. 5 (exclusive

6

jurisdiction vested in Court of Federal Claims where amount exceeds $10,000); see also

7

Bourgeois v. United States, 545 F.2d 727, 729 n.1 (Ct. Cl. 1976) (dispute over ownership of

8

property in a takings claim does not oust jurisdiction of Court of Federal Claims).

9
10

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction.

11

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge

12

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days

13

after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written

14

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned

15

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Failure to file objections

16

within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v.

17

Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

18

Dated: July 30, 2014

_____________________________________
CAROLYN K. DELANEY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

19
20
21

4 schema-usa.57

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2