Opinion ID: 222221
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Eleventh Amendment and Suits Seeking the Return of Property

Text: Jachetta argues that his case falls within the United States v. Lee, 106 U.S. 196, 1 S.Ct. 240, 27 L.Ed. 171 (1882), and Malone v. Bowdoin, 369 U.S. 643, 82 S.Ct. 980, 8 L.Ed.2d 168 (1962), exception to state sovereign immunity. Because Jachetta did not present this argument to the district court, it has been waived. See Smith, 194 F.3d at 1052. But in any event, Jachetta's argument lacks merit. Under Lee and Malone, the Eleventh Amendment does not bar suits in which a plaintiff asserts a claim for return of his property ... if the claim ... [is] based on the public official having acted beyond his statutory authority... or [if] the plaintiff's theory [is] that the action leading to the government's possession of the property was constitutionally infirm. Taylor v. Westly, 402 F.3d 924, 933 (9th Cir.2005). Here, however, Jachetta does not seek the return of his property  i.e., the gravel extracted from his allotment. Rather, he seeks monetary compensation from the State equivalent to the fair market value of the gravel. Accordingly, the Lee-Malone exception to sovereign immunity does not apply to Jachetta's case. See id. at 935 (holding that the Lee-Malone exception does not apply when the plaintiffs unquestionably [seek] money that belong[s] to the government, but to which the plaintiffs assert[] an entitlement).