Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca13-16-02148/USCOURTS-ca13-16-02148-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 512
Nature of Suit: 
Cause of Action: 

---

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

GENE CHITTENDEN, ALLEN D. HALL,

Plaintiffs-Appellants

v.

UNITED STATES,

Defendant-Appellee

______________________ 

2016-2148

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States Court of Federal 

Claims in No. 1:14-CV-00632, Judge Elaine Kaplan.

______________________ 

Decided: October 27, 2016

______________________ 

GENE CHITTENDEN, Auburn, CA, pro se.

ALLEN D. HALL, North San Juan, CA, pro se.

ERIKA KRANZ, Environment and Natural Resources 

Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for defendant-appellee. Also represented by JOHN 

C. CRUDEN. 

______________________ 

Case: 16-2148 Document: 20-2 Page: 1 Filed: 10/27/2016
2 CHITTENDEN v. US

Before PROST, Chief Judge, TARANTO and HUGHES,

Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Gene Chittenden and Allen Hall hold mining claims 

on two lode mines located in the Tahoe National Forest in 

California. After the United States Forest Service installed bat gates on the shaft and portal of the two mines, 

Mr. Chittenden and Mr. Hall sought damages for, among 

other things, an uncompensated taking in violation of the 

Fifth Amendment. The Court of Federal Claims granted

summary judgment in favor of the government after 

determining that the installation of the bat gates did not 

deprive claimants of the ability to develop their mining 

claims and therefore no taking occurred. Because we find 

that there is no genuine issue of material fact, the Court 

of Federal Claims did not err in ruling that the government was entitled to summary judgment and thus we 

affirm. 

I

Mr. Chittenden and Mr. Hall (claimants) hold mining 

claims on two lode mines—the Roye Sum lode mine and 

the Dolliegeek lode mine—located in the Tahoe National 

Forest in California. In November 2009, the Forest 

Service received a report that the Roye Sum mine contained a bat colony. Dave Brown, an Assistant Minerals 

Officer for the Forest Service, asked Mr. Hall if he would 

be willing to allow a bat biologist access to the mine to 

conduct an assessment. Mr. Hall denied the request. 

Nevertheless, the District Biologist and the Regional Bat 

Coordinator visited the Roye Sum mine on July 6, 2010, 

and recommended that the Forest Service install batfriendly gates on the mine portal and the mine shaft. 

Based on this recommendation, the Forest Service installed two bat gates in the Roye Sum mine on October 

12, 2010. The bat gate covering the mine shaft was made 

Case: 16-2148 Document: 20-2 Page: 2 Filed: 10/27/2016
CHITTENDEN v. US 3

of five 36-inch steel bars. Beneath the gate, the Forest 

Service also installed a short length of 36-inch diameter 

pipe (or “culvert”) inside the mine shaft. The gate across 

the mine portal was made of four vertical steel bars 

anchored into a concrete base and seven removable horizontal steel bars. In November 2010, Mr. Brown provided 

Mr. Hall with a key to remove the horizontal bars so that 

he could access the mine. 

On July 21, 2014, claimants filed suit against the 

United States in the Court of Federal Claims seeking 

$50,000,000 in damages alleging, among other things,

that the installation of the bat gates resulted in an uncompensated taking under the Fifth Amendment. The 

Court of Federal Claims granted summary judgment in 

favor of the government after determining that no taking 

occurred. 

Claimants appeal.1 We have jurisdiction under 28 

U.S.C. § 1295(a). 

II

This Court reviews the Court of Federal Claims’ 

grant of summary judgment de novo. M & J Coal Co. v. 

United States, 47 F.3d 1148, 1152 (Fed. Cir. 1995). Specifically, we review the record de novo to determine 

whether any genuine issue of material fact exists, and if 

not, whether the movant is entitled to judgment as a 

matter of law. Id.

“To encourage private development of mineral deposits, federal law permits private parties to discover, explore, and reclaim mineral deposits in federally-owned 

lands.” Kunkes v. United States, 78 F.3d 1549, 1550 (Fed. 

 

1 The Court of Federal Claims dismissed claimants’ 

due process and tort claims for lack of jurisdiction. These 

claims have not been appealed. 

Case: 16-2148 Document: 20-2 Page: 3 Filed: 10/27/2016
4 CHITTENDEN v. US

Cir. 1996). Therefore, pursuant to the Mining Act of 

1872, claimants “have the exclusive right of possession 

and enjoyment of all the surface included within the lines 

of their locations, and of all veins, lodes, and ledges 

throughout their entire depth . . . .” 30 U.S.C. § 26. 

Acquiring an interest in federal land for mining purposes is known as an “unpatented mining claim,” which is 

“an interest in only the minerals in the land and not in 

the land’s surface; the government retains fee title to the 

land.” Ford v. United States, 101 Fed. Cl. 234, 238 n.6 

(2011). Therefore, “[a]lthough unpatented mining claims 

are fully recognized possessory interests, they partake 

more of the character of use rights.” Kunkes, 78 F.3d at 

1554 (internal citation and quotation marks omitted). 

The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that private property shall not “be taken for 

public use without just compensation.” U.S. Const. 

amend. V, cl. 4. To evaluate whether a governmental 

action constitutes a taking of private property without 

just compensation, we must first determine “whether the

claimant has established a ‘property interest’ for purposes 

of the Fifth Amendment.” Maritrans Inc. v. United 

States, 342 F.3d 1344, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2003); see also M & 

J Coal Co., 47 F.3d at 1153–54. If a valid property interest exists, we then determine if a taking occurred. Id. 

Claimants assert that they possess a cognizable property interest in their unpatented mining claims. Although unpatented mining claims are protected by the 

Fifth Amendment against uncompensated takings, see

Kunkes, 78 F.3d at 1551, they are only “valid against the 

United States if there has been a discovery of mineral 

within the limits of the claim, if the lands are still mineral, and if other statutory requirements have been met.” 

Best v. Humboldt Placer Min. Co., 371 U.S. 334, 336 

(1963). “The [Bureau of Land Management] has primary 

jurisdiction to determine the validity of mining claims[.]” 

Case: 16-2148 Document: 20-2 Page: 4 Filed: 10/27/2016
CHITTENDEN v. US 5

Freeman v. United States, 83 Fed. Cl. 530, 533 (2008). 

Here, the Bureau of Land Management has not conducted 

a validity determination, but for purposes of this analysis, 

we assume that claimants’ mining claims are valid. 

Therefore, we must determine if a taking has occurred. 

Claimants allege that an uncompensated taking has 

occurred because the installation of the two bat gates 

constitutes a “permanent physical occupation” and denies 

them “meaningful access.”2 Pet. Br. 8–9. Generally, a 

permanent physical occupation of an owner’s property, 

authorized by the government, is a taking for which just 

 

2 Claimants also allege that the Forest Service did 

not have authority to install the bat gates because the

Forest Service may not conduct activities that endanger 

or materially interfere with mining, or related operations 

or activities on the mining claim. Pet. Br. 13–18. However, a “claimant must concede the validity of the government action which is the basis of the taking claim to bring 

suit under the Tucker Act[.]” Tabb Lakes, Ltd. v. United 

States, 10 F.3d 796, 802 (Fed. Cir. 1993). This is because 

“an uncompensated taking and an unlawful government 

action constitute two separate wrongs that give rise to

two separate causes of action,” and therefore, “a property 

owner is free either to sue in district court for asserted 

improprieties committed in the course of the challenged 

action or to sue for an uncompensated taking in the Court 

of Federal Claims.” Rith Energy, Inc. v. United States, 

247 F.3d 1355, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (internal quotation 

marks and citation omitted). By alleging that an improper taking occurred, claimants must litigate their takings 

claim on the assumption that the Forest Service had the 

proper authority to install the bat gates, and therefore, 

any arguments related to the Forest Service’s authority to 

install the bat gates are irrelevant in determining whether or not a taking occurred. 

Case: 16-2148 Document: 20-2 Page: 5 Filed: 10/27/2016
6 CHITTENDEN v. US

compensation is due under the Fifth Amendment. See 

Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp., 458 U.S. 

419, 426 (1982). Here, however, the United States retains 

fee title in the property and claimants have a possessory 

interest in the mining claims. Neither Loretto nor other 

authority cited by claimants supports treating the placement of the bat gates as a permanent physical occupation 

sufficient for compensation under the Fifth Amendment. 

Additionally, a physical taking may occur if the government denies meaningful access to claimants’ mining 

claims. See Washoe Cty., Nev. v. United States, 319 F.3d 

1320, 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2003). However, the United States, 

“as owner of the underlying fee title to the public domain, 

maintains broad powers over the terms and conditions 

upon which the public lands can be used, leased, and 

acquired.” United States v. Locke, 471 U.S. 84, 104 

(1985). “Claimants thus must take their mineral interests with the knowledge that the Government retains 

substantial regulatory power over those interests.” Id. at 

105. 

Therefore, claimants’ property interest is limited by

the regulations issued by the United States Forest Service. See 30 U.S.C. § 612(b) (mining claims “shall be 

subject, prior to issuance of patent therefor, to the right of 

the United States to manage and dispose of the vegetative 

surface resources thereof and to manage other surface 

resources thereof (except mineral deposits subject to 

location under the mining laws of the United States)”). 

Under 36 C.F.R. § 228.4(a), claimants must submit “a 

notice of intent to operate” for “operations which might 

cause significant disturbance of surface resources.” 

However, claimants have not submitted a notice of intent, 

and therefore their operations are limited to those that 

will not cause significant surface disturbance, which 

includes “prospecting and sampling . . . [that] will not 

involve removal of more than a reasonable amount of 

mineral deposit for analysis and study,” 36 C.F.R. 

Case: 16-2148 Document: 20-2 Page: 6 Filed: 10/27/2016
CHITTENDEN v. US 7

§ 228.4(a)(1)(ii), and “[o]perations which will not involve 

the use of mechanized earthmoving equipment, such as 

bulldozers or backhoes, or the cutting of trees,” id.

§ 228.4(a)(1)(vi). 

Here, claimants assert that the bat gates have denied 

them meaningful access to their mining claims because 

they cannot conduct “ordinary mining activities” or use 

“modern mining machinery,” Pet. Br. at 9, 21, and have 

thus been “deprived of all economic use of the mines,” id.

at 9. However, claimants, at this time, may not conduct 

“ordinary mining activities,” or use “modern mining 

machinery” because they are limited to those activities 

permissible before submission of the notice of intent. 

Moreover, the undisputed declaration of Mr. Brown, the

Assistant Minerals Officer for the Forest Service, stated 

that the bat gates installed at the Roye Sum mine “do not 

prevent Mr. Chittenden and Mr. Hall from performing 

underground operations that will not cause a significant 

surface resource disturbance.” Appx. 83. 

Because there is no genuine issue of material fact regarding whether the bat gates constitute a permanent 

physical occupation or deny claimants meaningful access 

to the mines for the purposes of conducting the limited, 

permissible activities, the Court of Federal Claims did not 

err in ruling that the government was entitled to summary judgment. 

AFFIRMED

No costs. 

Case: 16-2148 Document: 20-2 Page: 7 Filed: 10/27/2016