Opinion ID: 213694
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Attempts to Relitigate

Text: Underwood argues it had a right to maintain the dam structure, the Interior Board’s decision was contrary to law, the federal government lacked authority to interfere with the dam structure, and the government’s interference with Underwood’s dam structure was a violation of state and federal law. Each of these issues seeks to relitigate whether Underwood’s predecessors-in-interest possessed a valid right-of-way and thus whether Underwood possessed a valid property interest in the dam UNDERWOOD LIVESTOCK v. US 9 structure. As explained above, Underwood is precluded from relitigating this issue. II. Remaining Issues Underwood raises three additional issues: (1) whether Underwood’s procedural due process rights were violated; (2) whether the Interior Board possesses subject matter jurisdiction to hear issues relating to water rights; and (3) whether the government committed a Brady violation. The government argues that each of these issues is frivolous. Each issue is addressed in turn. Underwood argues its procedural due process rights were violated by the alleged lack of notice of the Bureau proceeding. First, this court lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate constitutional claims that do not provide for the payment of money damages. Joshua v. United States, 17 F.3d 378, 379-80 (Fed. Cir. 1994). Even if we had jurisdiction, the factual basis for Underwood’s argument is undercut by its own complaint, which sets out in some detail the correspondence between Underwood and the Bureau prior to the Bureau initiating action against Underwood. Moreover, Underwood’s president, sole employee, and sole shareholder previously challenged the Bureau decision on precisely this ground before the Interior Board and twice before the United States District Court for the District of Nevada. For support that this court can review decisions of the Interior Board, Underwood cites 5 U.S.C. § 7703(c), titled “Judicial review of decisions of the Merit Systems Protection Board.” Appellant’s Br. 6. Underwood’s statement of statutory authority concerning our jurisdiction is incorrect. The Merit Systems Protection Board is not the Interior Board. This court, just as the Claims Court, is a court of limited jurisdiction and lacks jurisdiction to review decisions of the Interior Board. To the extent Underwood is seeking review of the decisions of the Bureau or the district court in this case, Underwood sets forth no basis for jurisdiction of the Claims Court or this court over such matters, and 10 UNDERWOOD LIVESTOCK v. US indeed no such basis exists. See, e.g., Vereda, Ltda. v. United States, 271 F.3d 1367, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (stating the Claims Court “does not have jurisdiction to review the decisions of district courts” and “cannot entertain a taking[s] claim that requires the court to ‘scrutinize the actions of’ another tribunal.” (citations omitted)). Underwood’s argument lacks merit. Underwood next challenges the subject matter jurisdiction of the Interior Board to adjudicate water rights. First, whether the Interior Board can adjudicate water rights is irrelevant to this action because the Interior Board did not invalidate any water rights. In fact, the Interior Board assumed that Underwood’s predecessorsin-interest held a valid state water right. Wilson, 156 IBLA at 90-91. The Interior Board then explained that it did not follow from this water right that Underwood’s predecessors-in-interest held a right-of-way to construct a tire dam structure on federal land. Id. at 95. Underwood’s argument lacks merit. Underwood next argues that the United States com- mitted a Brady violation by concealing a Nevada State Engineer’s ruling affirming the existence of Underwood’s water rights. Underwood fails to explain how the federal government “concealed” this ruling when Underwood discovered the ruling by simply visiting the state engineer’s office. Nor could this “concealment” violate Brady because the Nevada State Engineer’s ruling is not exculpatory evidence in a criminal proceeding. See Brady, 373 U.S. at 87. Underwood’s argument lacks merit. Finally, in addition to the irrational and misplaced arguments addressed above, Underwood advances many more. For example, Underwood’s reply brief spends two unnecessary pages urging this court to take mandatory judicial notice of a laundry list of items ranging from the Constitution of the United States to “all Acts of Congress” to “the Common Law Maxim of ‘First in Time is First in Right.’” Reply Br. 18-19. Additionally, in Underwood’s UNDERWOOD LIVESTOCK v. US 11 opening brief, Underwood states, “[i]f the government in and through their employee’s [sic] both in the executive and judicial branches had read the Act from the Statutes at Large and not from their manuals or from the Code, they would have spared Underwood Livestock Inc. the violations of its constitutionally protected, Fifth Amendment Rights.” Appellant’s Br. 18. Underwood’s diatribe continues, “[t]he Code is only prima facie evidence of the law and pursuant to Title 1 (which has been enacted into positive law) § 204(a), Title 43 has not been enacted into positive law and the only law is the United States Statutes at Large.” Id. at 19. Underwood fails to explain how any of this relates to or has any bearing on its case.