N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
NATALIE M
. SW ANSON, Plaintiff - Appe lla nt,
v. UNITED STATES OF AM ER IC A, De fe nda

nt - Appe lle e . No. 12-55987 D.C . No. 3:10-c v-02363-IEG-NLS
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Southe rn Distric t of C a lifornia Irm a E. Gonz a le z , Se nior Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d a nd Subm itte d Fe brua

ry 7, 2014 Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : KLEINFELD, SILVER M AN, a nd HUR W ITZ, C irc uit Judge s. This la wsuit a rise s out of theFore st Se rvic e ’ s de struc tion of stone struc ture s on Na ta lie Swanson’ s m ining c la im s. The gove rnm e nt c onc e de s tha t Swa nson still owns them ining c la im s, c an still use the m ining c la i m s, a

nd c an se ll the m ining
c la im s. Thus, this disposition only a ddre sse s the stone struc ture s on Swa nson’ s 

# FIL ED FEB 19 2014 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S
. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3.-2-

m ining c l a i m s, not the c la im s the m se lve s. Na ta lie Swanson a

ppe a ls from

the distric t c o urt’ s gra

nt of theUnite d State s’ m otion to dism iss. W e hav e jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291, a n d we a ffirm
. First, the distric t c ourt wa s c o rre c t tha t Swa nson wa s c olla

te ra lly e stoppe d from se e k ing a de c la ratory judgm e nt tha

t the Surfa c e R e sourc e s Ac t of 1955 (30 U.S.C . § 612) did not a

pply to he r unpate nte d

m ining c la im s . This e xa c t sa m e issue wa s dire c tly a d d

re s se d on them e rits a

nd re je c te d in he r pre vious 2006 litiga tion, a nd Swa nson ne ve r a

ppe a le d tha

t de c ision. Thus, issue pre c lusion ba rs he r from re litiga t i ng it he re . S

e eOffshore

Sportsw e ar, Inc
. v . Vuarne t Inte rn., B.V., 114 F.3d 848, 851 (9th C ir. 1997) (issuepre c lusion ba rs pla intiff from

re l itiga ting
c la im s whe re “ the issue tha t le d to dismissa l wa s a d

j udic ate d on its m e rits a

nd wa s c onc lusive ly

de te rm ine d whe n

the tim e pa s se d for a

ppe a l” ). Se c ond, the distric t c ourt wa s c orre c t tha t Swa nson wa s not e ntitle d to a de c la ratory judgm e nt tha t she ha d a

prope rty right to use

the stone struc ture s in the
are a around he r m ining c la im s. An unpa te nte d m ining c la im

give s the c la im

holde r the right to use

the c la im for m i ning a

nd “ use s re a sona

bly inc ide nt the re t o.” Se e30 U.S.C . § 612(a )-(b); Unite d State s v . Bac k lund, 689 F.3d 986, 991 (9th C i r. 2012). InUnite d State

s v . Shumw ay , we e sta

blishe d tha

t a m i ne r’ s re side nc e m ay

be inc i de nta l to mining. 199 F.3d 1093, 1106 (9th Ci r. 1999). He re , howe ve r, the-3-

Fore st Se rvic e c o nc lude d tha t the struc ture s at issuewe re not re a sona bly inc ide nt to Swa nson’ s m i ning ope ration. In thete n y e ars sinc e that de te rm ination wa s m a de , Swanson ne ve r onc e c h a lle nge d it in a ny of he r la wsuits. Nor ha s she
a lle ge d in this c a se tha

t she use d the struc ture s in a wa y tha t would beinc ide nt to he r m ining ope rat ion a

t the tim e the Fore st Se rvic e re m ove d the struc ture s. Thus, sinc e the struc ture s we re not be ing use d for m ining purpose s, Swa nson ha d no prope rty right to use

the m . Fina lly , the distric t c ourt wa s c orre c t to dism iss Swa nson’ s c la im s for tre spa ss to c h atte ls, c onve rsion, a nd ne glige nc e . First, to the e xte nt the se c la im s we re ba se d on Swa

nson’ s purporte d prope rty right to use

the struc ture s, the y

fa il be c a use Swanson ha d no suc h right. Se c ond, to thee xte nt the se c la im s we re ba se d on the de struc tion of pe rsona l prope rty within the

stone struc ture s, the distric t c ourt c orre c tly c o nc l ude d tha

t it la c ke d subje c t

m atte r jurisdic tion to a ddre s s the m . Swanson’ s a dm inistra

tive Fe de ra l Torts C la i m

Ac t c la im only

c ite d he r purporte d prope rty right to use

the struc ture s a

nd ne ve r m e ntione d a

ny pe rsona l prope rty ; a

ny c la im s re lat e d to he r pe rsona l prope rty we re thus ne ve r a dm inistra tive ly e xha uste d
and the distric t c ourt the re fore la c ke d jurisdic tion to a ddre s s the m . S e e 28 U.S.C . § 2675(a ); Tritz v . U.S. Postal Serv . , 721 F.3d 1133, 1140 (9th C ir. 2013). AFFIRM E D
.