Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-00630/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-00630-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 290
Nature of Suit: Other Real Property Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1331(a) Fed. Question: Real Property

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOHN SCHEMA,

Plaintiff,

v.

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF 

AGRICULTURE, et al.,

Defendants.

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

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

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

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

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

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

FOLLOWS:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Case 2:14-cv-00630-MCE-DAD Document 23 Filed 07/30/14 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed for lack of 

subject matter jurisdiction.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dated: July 30, 2014

4 schema-usa.57

_____________________________________

CAROLYN K. DELANEY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:14-cv-00630-MCE-DAD Document 23 Filed 07/30/14 Page 2 of 2