T hi s or derand j udgm enti s notbi ndi ng pr ece dent , exce ptunderthe doctr i nes of * law o f th e c a se , res ju d ica ta, a n d c o llate ra l es to p p e l. Itm a yb e c ited , h o w e v e r, f o r its p e r s u a s i v e v a l u e c o n s i s t e n twi t h F e d . R. Ap p . P . 3 2 . 1 ( e f f. De c . 1 , 2 0 0 6 ) a n d 1 0 t h Ci r . R. 3 2 . 1 (ef f. Jan . 1 , 2 0 0 7 ). 

## F I LED Unite d St at e s C ourt o f Appe als Te nt h Ci r c uit 

### D e c e m b e r 28, 2006 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C l erk of C ourt UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS

T E N T H C IR C U IT J ERRY P. M c NEI L, P lain tiff -A p p e llan t, v. N o. 06- 5117 M E L IS S A A N D E R S O N , R o g e rs C o u n ty T ax A sses so r, D efe ndant - A ppel l ee. (D . C . N o. 06 -C V -073-C V E -SA J) ( N . D . O kl ahoma)

ORDE R AND J UDGM EN T * B efor e H E N R Y , B R I S C O E , and O’ BRI EN , C i rcui tJudg es. A ft erexami ni ng t he br i efs and appe l l at e r ecor d, thi s panel has det erm i ned u n a n im o u slyth a t o ra l ar g u m e n t w o u ld n o t m a ter iallya ss ist in th e d e ter m in a tio n o f th is appea l . See Fed. R . A pp. P. 34( a) ( 2) ; 10th C i r . R . 34. 1( G ) . T he ca s e i s , ther efor e, o rd e re d s u b m itte d w ith o u t o ra l a rg u m e n t. Pl ai nt i ff J err yP. M cN ei l , an O kl ahoma r es i dentappea r i ng pr o s e, appea l s fr om t he di s tr i ctcourt ’ s di s m i s s al of hi s compl ai ntas s ert i ng a s l anderof t i t l e cl ai m agai ns tthe Tax-2-

A s s e s s o r f

o r R o g e rs C o u n ty, O k la h o m a . W e e x e rc is e ju ri s d ic tio n p u rs u a n t to 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 9 1 a n d a f

f i r m. I. M c N e i l a n d h i s w i f

e a r e t h e o w n e r s o f

a p a r c e l o f

l a n d l o c a t e d i n R o g e r s C o u n ty, O kl ahoma, havi ng pur chas ed the par cel i n O ct ober1985 fr om W y l i e C ons t ruct i on, I ncorpor at ed. I n t he fa l l of 2005, defe ndantM el i s s a A nder s on, the Tax A s s es s orfor R oger s C ount y , not i fi ed M cN ei l and hi s w i fe thattheyow ed $1, 252. 00 i n ad val or em pr oper tyt axes on t he par cel . M cN ei l s entA nder s on a l et t eras ki ng thatthe par cel be rem o v ed fro m the tax roll s b ec au se, i n p erti n en t part, the p arc el ha d o ri g inallyb ee n p art of a l ar gerpi ece of pr opert yow ned bythe C her okee N at i on of I ndi ans and, i n 1906, convey ed byhom es t ead de ed t o J es s i e B eatr i ce Beck, a tr i bal m ember . M cN ei l as s ert ed thati tw as “fi r m l yes t abl i s hed thatI ndi an l ands [w e] r e notw i t hi n t he t axi ng author i t yof th e sta te,” a n d th u s, in h is v iew , an ytax a ss e ss m e n ts m a d e b yA n d e rso n a g a in st h is pr oper tyw er e “notl aw ful l ydue. ” A nder s on, aft ercons ul t i ng w i t h an as s i s t antdi s t r i ct a tto rn e yf

o r R o g e rs C o u n ty , as w e ll as th e O k lah o m a T a x C o m m iss io n , se n t M c N e il a l et t erback s t at i ng: “I ti s ourdeci s i on t haty ourpr oper t yi s t axabl e and [ s he] w [oul d] not be r emovi ng i tfr om t he t ax r ol l . ” M cN ei l pai d t he t ax as s es s m entand then, on February6, 2006, fi l ed thi s act i on a g a in st A n d e rso n in f

e d e ra l d istric t co u rt. M c N e il’s c o m p lain t, sim ilar to h is le tter to A nder s on, t r ace d t he ow ner s hi p of hi s pr oper t yback t o t he C her okee N at i on, as s ert ed that the l and “w as neveri ncorpor at ed w ith in the t err i t oryof the R epubl i can s t at e of-3-

O k la h o m a ,” a n d a lle g e d th a t th e la n d w a s “ n o w a n d f o re v e r, e n tire ly w i t houtthe r eac h of [the] t axi ng author i t y ” of O kl ahoma orR oger s C ount y . R O A , V ol . I , D oc. 1 at8 ( i t al i cs a n d u n d e rlin in g in o rig in a l). T h e c o m p lain t u lti m a telya ss e rte d a sla n d e r o f tit le c laim agai ns tA nder s on, al l egi ng t hats he had utt er ed and publ i s hed s l ander ous w or ds ( i n t he form of the t ax s t at ements he s entt o M cN ei l ) , thatthos e w or ds w er e fa l s e and m al i ci ous l ym ade, and thatM cN ei l had s us t ai ned s peci al damages as a r es ul tof A n d erso n ’s ac ti o n s (i . e., “p ay ing the f rau d u lent claim u n d er d u ress” ). A nder s on m oved t o di s m i s s M cN ei l ’ s compl ai ntforl ack of s ubj ectm at t er j ur i s di ct i on, forfai l ur e t o s t at e a c l ai m upon w hi ch r el i ef c oul d be gr ant ed, and on the b a sis o f im m u n ityf

ro m liab ili tyu n d e r th e O k lah o m a G o v e rn m e n tal T o rt C laim s A c t, O kl a. St at . t i t . 51, §§ 151- 200. O n M ay22, 2006, the di s t r i ctcour ti s s ued an opi ni on and or dergr ant i ng A nder s on’ s m ot i on t o di s m i s s . I n doi ng s o, the di s t r i ctcour tconcl uded th a t it la c k e d f

e d e ra l s u b

je c t m a tte r j u ri s d ic tio n o v e r M c N e il’ s s la n d e r o f title c la im . A l though M cN ei l ’ s compl ai ntexpr es s l ys t at ed thatthe di s t r i ctcour thad admi r al t yand m ar i t i m e j ur i s di ct i on overt he ca s e, the di s t r i ctcour tr ej ect ed thatas s ert i on, not i ng that “[t ] he as s es s m entof ad va l or em prope r t yt axes bythe O kl ahoma T ax C om m i s s i on and R oger s C ount ydo noti n anyw ayr el at e t o t he pr ot ect i on of m ar i t i m e comm er ce orthe regul at i on of n avigabl e w at ers . . . . ” R O A , V ol. I, D oc. 19 at2. T he d i stri ctcou rtal so concl uded that“[a ] nyexempt i on [M cN ei l ] m ays eek f r om pr oper t yt axes as s es s ed byt he O kl ahoma T ax C om m i s s i on orR oger s C ount yw oul d ar i s e underthe l aw s of O kl ahoma, notfede r al l aw , ” and thus i tl acke d “j ur i s di ct i on under28 U . S. C . § 1331. ” I d. A l t hough-4-

M cN ei l m oved forr econs i der at i on, t he di s t r i ctcour tdeni ed thatm ot i on. M cN ei l has sin c e f iled a n o tice o f

a p p e a l. II. W e r evi ew de novo the di s t r i ctcour t ’ s di s m i s s al of M cN ei l ’ s compl ai ntforl ack of s ubj ectm att erj ur i s di ct i on. H i gh C ount r yC i t i zens A l l i ance v. C l arke, 454 F. 3d 1177, 1180 ( 10th C i r . 2006) . A ft err evi ew i ng M cN ei l ’ s compl ai nt , w e agr ee w i t h t he di s t r i ct cour tthatnone of the al l egat i ons t her ei n demonstr at e a c onnect i on betw een the al l eged w r ongful conductof A nder s on and mar i t i m e comm er ce, act i vi t y , and/ ornavi gat i on. See J e ro m e B . G ru b a rt , In c . v . G re a t L a k e s D re d g e & D o c k , 5 1 3 U .S . 5 2 7 , 5 3 8 -4 0 (1 9 9 5 ). T hus , i ti s cl eart hatt he di s t r i ctcour tl acke d admi r al tyorm ar i t i m e j ur i s di ct i on over M cN ei l ’ s compl ai nt . W e l i kew i s e agr ee w i t h t he di s t r i ctcour tthatM cN ei l ’ s caus e of act i on i s notone that“ar i s [es ] underthe C ons t i tut i on, l aw s , ortr eat i es of the U ni t ed St at es , ” as w oul d be r equi r ed fort he di s t r i ctcour tt o as s erts ubj ectm att erj ur i s di ct i on overt he ca us e of a ct i on pur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . § 1331. A l t hough the mat er i al s s ubm i t t ed byM cN ei l i n connec t i on w i t h hi s compl ai nti ndi cat e thathi s par cel w as or i gi nal l yow ned b ythe U n it ed S tat es a n d then co n v ey ed b yp aten t t o the C h ero k ee N ati o n , tho se f ac ts are i ns uffi ci ent , s t andi ng al one, t o es t abl i s h t hathi s cl ai m agai ns tA nder s on i nvol ves i s s ues of fede r al l aw . See O nei da I ndi an N at i on v. O nei da C ount y , 414 U . S. 661, 676- 77 ( 1974) ( “O nce pa t enti s s ues , t he i nci dent s of ow ner s hi p ar e, forthe mostpart , m at t er s of l ocal p ro p e rtylaw to b e v in d ica ted in lo c a l co u rts, a n d in su c h situ a tio n s it is n o rm a lly i ns uffi ci entfor‘ ar i s i ng under ’ j ur i s di ct i on m er el yt o al l ege thatow ner s hi p orpos s es s i on-5-

i s cl ai m ed undera U ni t ed St at es pat ent . ”) . Fi nal l y , even a s s um i ng, forpurpos es of a rg u m e n t, th a t th e d istric t co u rt d id h a v e ju risd ictio n o v e r M c N e il’s c o m p lain t p u rsu a n t to § 1331, w e conc l ude thatM cN ei l fai l ed t o s t at e a c l ai m upon w hi ch r el i ef c oul d be g ra n ted . A s A n d e rso n n o ted in h e r m o tio n to d ism iss , the m a ter ials su b m itt e d b yM c N e il in c o n n e c tio n w ith h is c o m p lain t cle a rlye sta b lish th a t th e p ro p e rtya t issu e h a s b e e n so ld n u m e ro u s tim e s to p riv a te p e rso n s (in c lu d in g a t lea st o n e p riv a te e n tity ), an d th u s is c lea rly“ su b

jec t to a d v a lo re m p ro p e rtytax a tio n a s p a rt o f th e g e n e ra l m a ss o f

p ro p e rtyin the s t at e. ” R obber t s v. N or t hvi l l e Tow ns hi p, 22 Fed. A ppx. 527, 528 ( 6th C i r . 2001) (ci t i ng O klahom a T ax C om m ’n v. T exas C o. , 33 6 U . S . 34 2, 35 3 (194 9)) . In ot her w ords, the fa ctthatt he pr opert yati s s ue w as atone t i m e conve y ed t o and ow ned bythe C her okee N at i on and one of

i t s m ember s does not , atthi s poi nti n t i m e, r enderthe pr oper t yexempt from st at e or l ocal t axes. A F F IR M E D . E n tered fo r th e C o u rt M aryB eck Bri s coe C i r cui tJ udge