## F I L E D United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### APR 7 2004 

### PATRICK FISHER Clerk 

### PUBLISH UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

SOUTHWEST FOUR WHEEL DRIVE ASSOCIATION, a New Mexico nonprofit association; LAS CRUCES FOUR WHEEL DRIVE CLUB, a New Mexico unincorporated association, Plaintiffs-Appellants,

v. BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, an agency of the United States Department of the Interior; AMY LEUDERS, District Manager, Las Cruces District, Bureau of Land Management; UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendants-Appellees.
THE WILDERNESS SOCIETY; NEW MEXICO WILDERNESS ASSOCIATION, Intervenors-Appellees. No. 03-2138

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of New Mexico (D.C. No. CIV-00-799-LH/ACT)-2-

Lee E. Peters, of Hubert & Hernandez, P.A., Las Cru ces, New Mexico, for Southwest Four Wheel Drive Association, and Las Cru ces Four Wheel Drive Club, Plaintiffs-Appellants. M. Alice Thurston, Attorney, Appellate Section, Env ironment & Natural Resources Division, Department of Justice, Washingt on, D.C. (Todd S. Aagaard, Attorney, Appellate Section, Environment & Natural Resources Division, Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., Thomas L. Sansonetti, Assistant Attorney General, David C. Iglesias, United States Attorney, and Raymond Hamilton, Assistant United States Attorney, Albuque rque, New Mexico, and Dale Pontius, Office of the Solicitor, Santa Fe, New Mex ico, Paul B. Smyth and Wendy S. Dorman, Office of the Solicitor, Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C., on the briefs with her) for Bureau of Land Manageme nt, Amy Leuders, and United States of America, Defendants-Appellees. Edward B. Zukoski, of Earthjustice, Denver, Colorad o, for The Wilderness Society and New Mexico Wilderness Association, Inte rvenors/Appelles.

Before SEYMOUR , Circuit Judge, BALDOCK , Senior Circuit Judge and LUCERO , Circuit Judge.

SEYMOUR , Circuit Judge.
Southwest Four Wheel Drive Association (Southwest) filed suit in federal district court in New Mexico seeking a judgment granting to the public the title to certain roads on federal land. The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) closed the roads at issue after designating the area encompass ing them the Robledo Mountains Wilderness Study Area and declaring the area “roadless.” The district court dismissed Southwest’s claim, noting the QuietTitle Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2409a, provided Southwest’s exclusive remedy and finding S outhwest’s claim outside the-3-

Act’s twelve-year statute of limitations. Southwest Four Wheel Drive Ass’n. v. Bureau of Land Mgmt. , 271 F.Supp.2d 1308, 1314 (D. N.M. 2003). “We are free to affirm a district court decision on any grounds for which there is a record sufficient to permit conclusions of law, even groun ds not relied upon by the district court.” United States v. Sandoval , 29 F.3d 537, 542 n.6 (10th Cir. 1994) (citations and quotations omitted). Holding Southw est lacks a cause of action under the Quiet Title Act, we affirm the district c ourt’s dismissal. Congress waived the United States’ sovereign immuni ty to suits seeking to quiet title to certain federal lands in the Quiet T itle Act. One of the Act’s requirements is that any claimant under the Act mus t “set forth with particularity the nature of the right, title, or interest which t he plaintiff claims in the real property.” 28 U.S.C. § 2409a(d). We held in Kinscherff v. United States , 586 F.2d 159, 160 (10th Cir. 1978), that “[m]embers of the public . . . do not have a ‘title’ in public roads,” and therefore cannot meetthe requirements of section 2409a(d). Because Southwest’s claim is indistingui shable from the one denied in Kinscherff

, that case disposes of Southwest’s appeal. The district court held that the Supreme Court’s de cision in Block v. North Dakota , 461 U.S. 273 (1983), overruled Kinscherff on the point of law at issue in this case. We disagree. Block definitively established the Quiet Title Act as “th e exclusive means by which adverse claimants [can] ch allenge the United States’-4-

title to real property,” Block, 461 U.S. at 286, but that holding does not create a claim for Southwest. The Block decision merely means that if Southwest cannot state a claim under the Quiet Title Act, it has no other recourse against the United States. “When the United States consents to be sued, the te rms of its waiver of sovereign immunity define the extent of the court’s jurisdiction.” United States v.
Mottaz , 476 U.S. 834, 841 (1986). Because the Quiet Titl e Act is the exclusive means for challenging the United States’ title to r eal property, Block, 461 U.S. at 286, if Southwest cannot state a claim within the t erms of the Act’s provisions, the federal courts lack jurisdiction over its suit. See, e.g. , Warren v. United States , 234 F.3d 1331, 1332 (D.C. Cir. 2000) (discussing the terms of the Quiet Title Act as prerequisites to jurisdiction); Staley v. United States , 168 F. Supp. 2d 1209, 1211-12 (D. Colo. 2001) (same); Baker’s Peak Landowner’s Ass’n, Inc. v. United States , 2001 WL 34360431, at *2 (D. Colo. 2001) (same). Pursuant to Kinscherff

, Southwest cannot establish a claim under the Quie t Title Act and thus it cannot bring suit against the United States. Given Southwest’s inability to state a claim, we ne ed not reach the statute of limitations question upon which the district cou rt based its dismissal. Albeit on different grounds than those asserted by the dis trict court, we AFFIRM

.