Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-akd-4_10-cv-00033/USCOURTS-akd-4_10-cv-00033-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 290
Nature of Suit: Other Real Property Actions
Cause of Action: 28:2409(a) Quiet Title Action

---

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF ALASKA

CAREY MILLS,

Plaintiff,

vs.

SCOTT WOOD; DOYON LIMITED; and

HUNGWITCHIN CORPORATION,

Defendants,

and

KURT KANAM,

Defendant-in-Intervention.

Case No. 4:10-cv-00033-RRB

ORDER REGARDING MOTION

FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

AT DOCKET 300

I. PENDING MOTION

AtDocket300DefendantHungwitchinCorporationhas moved forsummaryjudgment.

Plaintiff Carey Mills has opposed the motion1 and Hungwitchin has replied.2 The Court has

determined that oral argument would not materially assist in resolving the issues presented;

1 Docket 309.

2 Docket 310.

ORDER REGARDING MOTION FOR SUMMARYJUDGMENT AT DOCKET 300 – 1

Mills v. Wood, 4:10-cv-00033-RRB 

Case 4:10-cv-00033-RRB Document 311 Filed 05/06/15 Page 1 of 11
accordingly, the matteris submitted for decisiononthe moving and opposing papers without

oral argument.

3

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

Summary judgment is appropriate if, when viewing the evidence in the light most

favorable to the non-moving party, there are no genuine issues of material fact and the moving

partyis entitled to judgment inits favor as a matter of law.

4 Support and oppositionto a motion

for summary judgment is made by affidavit made on personal knowledge of the affiant,

depositions, answers to interrogatories, setting forth such facts as may be admissible in

evidence.5In response to a properly supported motion for summary judgment, the opposing

party must set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue of material fact for

trial.

6 The issue of material fact required to be present to entitle a party to proceed to trial is

not required to be resolved conclusivelyinfavor of the party asserting its existence; all that is

required is that sufficient evidence supporting the claimed factualdispute be shownto require

a juryorjudge to resolve the parties' differing versions of the truth at trial. Inorderto show that

a genuine issue of materialfactexists a nonmoving plaintiffmustintroduce probative evidence

3 D.Ak. LR 7.2(a).

4 Fed. R. Civ.P. 56(c); Lopez v.Smith,203 F.3d 1122,1131 (9thCir. 2000) (en banc);

Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1044 (9th Cir. 1989).

5 Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e).

6

Id.; Henderson v. City of Simi Valley, 305 F.3d 1052, 1055–56 (9th Cir. 2002).

ORDER REGARDING MOTION FOR SUMMARYJUDGMENT AT DOCKET 300 – 2

Mills v. Wood, 4:10-cv-00033-RRB 

Case 4:10-cv-00033-RRB Document 311 Filed 05/06/15 Page 2 of 11
that establishes the elements of the complaint.

7 Material facts are those that may affect the

outcome of the case.8 A dispute as to a material fact is genuine if there is sufficient evidence

for a reasonable juryto returna verdict forthe non-moving party.

9

"Credibility determinations,

the weighing of the evidence, and the drawing of legitimate inferences from the facts are jury

functions, not those of a judge, [when] he is ruling on a motion for summary judgment."

10 The

evidence of the non-moving party is to be believed and all justifiable inferences are drawn in

his favor.

11 The moving partyhas the burdenof showing there is no genuine issue of material

fact; therefore, the moving party bears the burden of both production and persuasion.

12 The

moving party, however, has no burdento negate or disprove matters onwhichthe non-moving

party will have the burden of proof at trial. The moving party need only point out to the Court

that there is an absence of evidence to support the non-moving party's case.13 There is no

genuine issue of fact if, on the record taken as a whole, a rational trier of fact could not find in

favor of the party opposing the motion.

14

7 Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248–49 (1986).

8

Id.

9

Id.

10

Id. at 255.

11

Id.

12 Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322–323 (1986).

13 Sluimer v.Verity, Inc., 606 F.3d 584, 586 (9th Cir. 2010); see Celotex, 477 U.S. at

325.

14 Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586 (1986).

ORDER REGARDING MOTION FOR SUMMARYJUDGMENT AT DOCKET 300 – 3

Mills v. Wood, 4:10-cv-00033-RRB 

Case 4:10-cv-00033-RRB Document 311 Filed 05/06/15 Page 3 of 11
In general, in ruling on a motion for summary judgment, a court may not weigh the

evidence or judge the credibility of witnesses.15Instead, it generally accepts as true

statements made under oath.

16 However, this rule does not apply to conclusory statements

unsupported by underlying facts,17 nor maythe court draw unreasonable inferences from the

evidence.18

“To survive summaryjudgment, a plaintiff must set forthnon-speculative facts, not

sweeping conclusory statements.”

19

III. BACKGROUND/ISSUES PRESENTED

The background and history of this case is well known to the parties and is repeated

hereinonlyto the extent necessaryto anunderstanding of this decision.This lawsuit concerns

certainmining claims issued by the State of Alaska, ADL 611494–96 and ADL 611578–81,

that directly abut and are adjacent to the Fortymile Station–Eagle Trail. Hungwitchin Corp.,

an Alaska Native Corporation, holds the surface estate of property under the Alaska Native

Claims Settlement Act [Public Law 92-103] (“ANCSA”) over which it is alleged that the

Fortymile Trail traverses. Mills, the holder of unpatented federal mining claims, brought this

15 Dominguez-Curry v. Nevada Transp. Dept., 424 F.3d 1027, 1036 (9th Cir. 2005).

16 Earp v. Ornoski, 431 F.3d 1158, 1170 (9th Cir. 2005).

17 Walker v. Sumner, 917 F.2d 382, 387 (9th Cir. 1990).

18 See Sprewell v. Golden State Warriors, 266 F.3d 979, 988 (9th Cir. 2001);

McLaughlin v. Liu, 849 F.2d 1205, 1207–1209 (9th Cir. 1988).

19 Calfasso, U.S. ex rel. v. Gen Dynamics C4 Sys.,Inc.,637 F.3d 1047,1061 (9thCir.

2011).

ORDER REGARDING MOTION FOR SUMMARYJUDGMENT AT DOCKET 300 – 4

Mills v. Wood, 4:10-cv-00033-RRB 

Case 4:10-cv-00033-RRB Document 311 Filed 05/06/15 Page 4 of 11
actionunder R.S. 247720

to establishhis rights withrespect to the Fortymile Trail to the extent

it crosses Hungwitchin property. Mills contends that the Fortymile Trail constitutes a right-ofway for public use over which he has the right of ingress and egress.

This Court has made clear that Mills may assert in this lawsuit only those rights to the

use of the Fortymile Trail that he has as a private party. Thus, Mills has the burden of

establishing two elements: (1) the existence and location of the Fortymile Trail; and (2) the

extent of his rights as a member of the general public to use that trail.

21

In its motion Hungwitchin contends that at no time has it denied Mills access to his

mining claim. Insupport of that contention, Hungwitchinsubmitted three affidavits setting forth

the facts.

4. I am very familiar withthe old cabin on the west side of the Taylor about ten

miles south of Eagle. This is where the cut off the Taylor Highway down to

Teddy's Fork, DiscoveryFork and American Creek is located. After the cut-off

this trail goes along Teddy's Fork following the creek ina southerlyand westerly

direction.

5. Hungwitchin Corporation has not attempted to block access to the trail

described in Paragraph 3-4 above. Hungwitchin has not authorized any of its

members or representatives to block access.

6. The corporation has not built a fence, gate, or berm which would restrict or

block access to the trail described above; the corporationhas not posted any

notices which would limit or block access to the path alongside Teddy's Fork

on the surface estate owned by Hungwitchin Corporation.

22

A second affidavit in which it is stated that:

20 43 U.S.C. § 932 reclassified R.S. 2477 as first enacted bythe Act of July26, 1866,

ch 262, § 8), 14 Stat. 251, 253 (1866) (repealed 1976).

21 Docket 257.

22 Affidavit of Brian Ridley, Docket 304.

ORDER REGARDING MOTION FOR SUMMARYJUDGMENT AT DOCKET 300 – 5

Mills v. Wood, 4:10-cv-00033-RRB 

Case 4:10-cv-00033-RRB Document 311 Filed 05/06/15 Page 5 of 11
2. During my 30-plus years in Eagle, I have never seen or heard of any

accessways off the west side of the Taylor Highway in the area of American

Creek, including Teddy's Fork and Discovery Creek Fork other than the cut at

the old cabin located on the Discovery Creek Fork, milepost 150.7 from Tok

Junction, about 9.9 miles south of Eagle.23

Attached to that affidavit are seven photographs depicting the three bridges between

mileposts 149 and 153 of the Taylor Highway described in the affidavit as follows:

4. (a)Photograph1 shows MP 149 (from Tok Junction), looking northtowards

DiscoveryFork Bridge, the first of three bridges inthe area ofAmericanCreek,

Teddy's Fork and Discovery Fork between MP 149 and 153. The vehicle is

mine. This photographshows no accesses from the south side of the bridge to

either the east or the west.

(b)Photograph 2 shows a cabin on the west side of the Taylor Highwayat MP

150.7; the drivewaycut canbe seen to the left, or the south. There are no other

accesses to the west for the next few miles. Teddy's Fork is visible in the

background, behind, or to the west of the cabin. Teddy's Fork merges with

American Creek in the area of this cabin.

(c) Photograph 3 shows MP 151.6,AmericanCreek Bridge No. 1 (the middle

of the three bridges). I have always understood thatScottWood accesses his

claim from the old cabin at MP 150.7 (photograph 2), and from there that his

claims go west up Teddy's Fork and north along American Creek which

parallels the Taylor Highway to American Creek Bridge #1. There are no cuts

off the Taylor Highway to either the east or west at American Bridge No. 1 or

between the old cabin and this bridge.

(d) Photograph 4 shows the west side of the Taylor Highway from the north of

AmericanCreek Bridge No. 1. In this picture, I am showing the general terrain

in this area.

( e) Photograph 5 shows the Taylor Highway and general terrain looking north

toward American Creek Bridge No. 2 (the third bridge from the South), which

is located at milepost 152.2 from Tok Junction. American Creek Bridges No.

1 and 2 are about 0.6 mile apart. There are no trails, driveways, orother vehicle

accesses between these two bridges.

(f)Photograph6 shows the terrainto the west of the Taylor Highwayonthe north

side of American Creek Bridge No. 2. Iwas specificallyasked to look for trails

or accesses in this area. There is no sign of any trails.

23 Affidavit of David Roy, Docket 302.

ORDER REGARDING MOTION FOR SUMMARYJUDGMENT AT DOCKET 300 – 6

Mills v. Wood, 4:10-cv-00033-RRB 

Case 4:10-cv-00033-RRB Document 311 Filed 05/06/15 Page 6 of 11
(g)Photograph7 showsa typicalviewatAmericanCreek Bridge No. 2, looking

down from the Taylor Highway onto. the creek, which is approximately 30 feet

below the highway. There is no sign of any trails and this is typical of the

vegetative growth in this area.

Ina third affidavit, Hungwitchin’s Registered Agent states thatno pre-suit demand was

presented to the Hungwitchin Board of Directors.24

Mills does not dispute those facts. Instead, Mills argues that on September 2, 2007,

he encountered a man-made berm ona road leading to his mining claim,whichberm blocked

his access byfour-wheeler.Otherthanhis bald assertion, Mills provides no evidence that this

road, let alone that portion of the road where the berm is located, follows either wholly or in

relevant part the Fortymile Trail. Nor does Mills offer any evidence that, even if it were part of

the Fortymile Trail, the berm is located on Hungwitchin land. Mills further argues that on no

occasionsince September 2, 2007, has Hungwitchincontacted him granting him permission

to access his mining claims along the Fortymile Trail.

IV. DISCUSSION

Forthe purposes ofruling on the pending motion the Court assumes without deciding

that the State of Alaska holds valid title to a right-of-way over the Fortymile Station–Eagle

Trail.The Courtfurther assumes that Mills enjoys the rights of a private citizento the use of that

trail.

Initiallythe Court notes that Mills’ oppositionis terse, conclusory, undeveloped, vague,

and, forthe most part, unsupported byany evidence. While this Court follows the generalrule

24 Affidavit of April Frank, Docket 303.

ORDER REGARDING MOTION FOR SUMMARYJUDGMENT AT DOCKET 300 – 7

Mills v. Wood, 4:10-cv-00033-RRB 

Case 4:10-cv-00033-RRB Document 311 Filed 05/06/15 Page 7 of 11
that grants pro se parties considerable leeway in pleadings and other documents filed in a

case, pro se parties are nonetheless expected to follow the established rules of practice and

procedure. Mills’ opposition clearly does not meet the applicable standards for opposing

summary judgment.

25

The evidence submitted by Hungwitchin, if uncontroverted, establishes that it has not,

directlyorindirectly, inanywayimpeded Mills’ access overthe trailthattraverses Hungwitchin

property. Inhis oppositionto the motion, Mills refers to a berm ona road that appears to block,

or at least impede, vehicular traffic. As noted above, however, other than the conclusory

statement that it was on part of the Fortymile Trail, Mills offers no credible evidence,

admissible or inadmissible, that it is either part of the Fortymile Trail or on Hungwitchin

property.

26 Mills also appears to argue that Hungwitchinhad a legal dutyto give him express

25 As does Hungwitchin, the Court finds puzzling the purpose of Mills’ Exhibit 2, a fourpage Table of Contents of RS 2477 Rights-of-Way Evidence Notebooks. Mills does not,

however,offeranyof the contents of the Notebooks themselves. Contraryto Mills’ arguments,

while he has referred to the potential evidence to support his claims, e.g., the Evidence

Notebooks and statements of persons identified in his Preliminary Witness List, he has not

produced that evidence. Consequently, there is nothing before this Court to consider.

Furthermore, Mills has disregarded the Court’s specific instructions regarding summary

judgment motions. See Minute Order from Chambers at Docket 307.

26

Inhis oppositionMills refers to a document filed byHungwitchininwhichit joined the

Doyon’s reply to Mills’ response to a motion to clarify the issues on remand. Docket 206

[DoyonReply];Docket207 [HungwitchinJoinder]. Mills quotes from that document. However,

the quoted language does not appear in either the document to which it is attributed, or

Doyon’s reply. That language does, however, appear in Hungwitchin’s joinder in the motion

itself filed at Docket 202. Mills is cautioned that reference to matters in the record that

incorrectly identify the docket number increases the burden on the Court, and creates a

serious risk that the Court will overlook the material to which reference is made.

ORDER REGARDING MOTION FOR SUMMARYJUDGMENT AT DOCKET 300 – 8

Mills v. Wood, 4:10-cv-00033-RRB 

Case 4:10-cv-00033-RRB Document 311 Filed 05/06/15 Page 8 of 11
permission to traverse that part of the Fortymile Trail that lies on Hungwitchin land, and its

failure to do so somehowviolated his rights. Missing from Mills’ argument is that he requested

permission, which permission was denied. Furthermore, Mills’ argument turns the law on its

head. Mills cites no authority for the proposition that under Alaska law a landowner has an

affirmative duty to grant permission to traverse its property; particularlyinlight of a lack of any

request for that permission.

27 Nor has the independent research by the Court revealed any

such authority.

28

In short, while it is clear that Hungwitchin has consistently denied the

existence of anR.S. 2477 right-of-way over the Fortymile Trail, Mills has failed to establishby

anycompetent evidence that Hungwitchinhas actually interfered with his rights as a member

of the general public to use the Fortymile Trail.

But that does not necessarily end this action insofar as it involves Hungwitchin. While

it clearlyremoves anyclaim for damages, it does notresolve the question of the existence or

the location of the Fortymile Trail. It does not appear from the pleadings and documents on

file herein that Hungwitchin concedes either the existence or location of the Fortymile Trail.

Consequently, to that extent the controversy between Mills and Hungwitchin remains.

27 Moreover, the entire thrust of Mills’ lawsuit is that he does not need “permission”to

use the Fortymile Trail. Mills action stands and falls on his right as a member of the general

public, if any, to use the Fortymile Trail irrespective of whether or not he has the express

permission of the landowner over which the trail traverses.

28

Indeed, the Alaska Supreme Court has at least inferentiallyheld to the contrary. See

McDowell v. State, 957 P.2d 965, 968 & n.6 (Alaska 1998).

ORDER REGARDING MOTION FOR SUMMARYJUDGMENT AT DOCKET 300 – 9

Mills v. Wood, 4:10-cv-00033-RRB 

Case 4:10-cv-00033-RRB Document 311 Filed 05/06/15 Page 9 of 11
Adjudication of a particular fact, in the context of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56,

is addressed byRule 56(d). Rule 56(d) permits the courtto find particularfacts uncontroverted

in connection with a motion brought under Rule 56 where “judgment is not rendered upon

whole case or for all the relief asked.” The procedure in subdivision (d) is designed to be

ancillaryto a motion for summaryjudgment; it does not authorize the entryof judgment onpart

of a claim orthe granting of partialrelief.

29

Inthis case, while it is clear that Mills cannot prevail

onthe issue ofdamages, it is likewise as clear that the questionconcerning the existence and

locationof the R.S. 2477 Fortymile Station – Eagle Trail, as well as anyrights Mills mayhave

with respect to thereto, remains unresolved.

V. ORDER

Accordingly, Defendant Hungwitchin Corporation’s MotionforSummaryJudgment as

to Plaintiff’s Claims against Hungwitchin Corporation at Docket 300 is hereby GRANTED

IN PART. The Court finds as a matter of law on the evidence presented, that Hungwitchin

Corporation has not denied Plaintiff Carey Mills access to his mining claims utilizing any

existing trail located on Hungwitchin Corporation property, irrespective of whether or not that

trail constitutes a public trailunder R.S. 2477. Accordingly, Plaintiff Carey Mills is not entitled

to recover compensable damages in any amount, or any relief at all, from Hungwitchin

Corporation to the extent it may be based upon an alleged denial of access across

29 See generally 10B Charles Alan Wright, Arthur R. Miller, & Mary Kay Kane, Fed.

Prac. & Proc. Civ., § 2737 (3d ed.).

ORDER REGARDING MOTION FOR SUMMARYJUDGMENT AT DOCKET 300 – 10

Mills v. Wood, 4:10-cv-00033-RRB 

Case 4:10-cv-00033-RRB Document 311 Filed 05/06/15 Page 10 of 11
Hungwitchin’s surface estate. Upon entry of final judgment herein, judgment will be entered

accordingly in favor of Defendant Hungwitchin Corporation as against Plaintiff Carey Mills.

To the extent the Fourth Amended Complaint on file herein seeks to establish the

existence and location of the R.S. 2477 Fortymile Station – Eagle Trail, and the rights of

Plaintiff Carey Mills thereunder, Defendant Hungwitchin Corporation’s Motion for Summary

Judgment as to Plaintiff’s Claims against Hungwitchin Corporationat Docket 300 is hereby

DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 6

th day of May, 2015.

/s/ RALPH R. BEISTLINE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

ORDER REGARDING MOTION FOR SUMMARYJUDGMENT AT DOCKET 300 – 11

Mills v. Wood, 4:10-cv-00033-RRB 

Case 4:10-cv-00033-RRB Document 311 Filed 05/06/15 Page 11 of 11