Opinion ID: 1041860
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: DJA Claims

Text: McMaster also argues that the district court erred in dismissing its three claims seeking relief under the DJA. Block’s holding that the QTA is the “exclusive means by which adverse claimants c[an] challenge the United States’ title to real property,” Block, 461 U.S. at 286, also applies to DJA claims. In Block, the plaintiff raised a DJA claim, but the Court determined that only the QTA claims could proceed. Id. at 278, 292–93. Here again, the crux of McMaster’s DJA claims is that McMaster is entitled to fee-simple ownership of his Oro Grande mining claim. Thus, McMaster’s DJA claims must also fail. See Patchak, 132 S. Ct. at 2207; Block, 461 U.S. at 287; Alaska, 182 F.3d at 674; Donnelly, 850 F.2d at 1318. McMaster’s DJA claims were also properly dismissed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). MCMASTER V. UNITED STATES 39