Kimball-Griffith, L.P. v. Burman

The QTA’s limitations period is a mere claims processing rule–not a jurisdictional requirement. Wilkins v. United States, 143 S. Ct. 870 (2023). “[T]o state a claim under the Takings Clause, a plaintiff must first demonstrate that he possesses a property interest that is constitutionally protected.” Turnacliff v. Westly, 546 F.3d 1113 (9th Cir. 2008) (cleaned up).

The United States acquired land for a reservoir and obtained an easement for an access road from the federal Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) in 1989. Public access to that road was blocked with locked gates. In 2020, Kimball-Griffith filed a lawsuit asserting a right to use the access road. The district court dismissed the case, concluding the statute of limitations elapsed under the Quiet Title Act (QTA), 28 U.S.C. § 2409a(a), that other claims were time-barred, and that Kimball-Griffith failed to allege a property interest. Kimball-Griffith argued their claim was a “Petition to Reopen” which does not implicate the QTA, and that an easement was preserved for their predecessors by an eminent domain action in 1955 and passed onto them. BOR argued the QTA applied because the claim was over an easement on federal land. "The QTA’s limitation period is a mere claims processing rule–not a jurisdictional requirement." Wilkins v. United States, 143 S. Ct. 870 (2023). “[T]o state a claim under the Takings Clause, a plaintiff must first demonstrate that he possesses a property interest that is constitutionally protected.” Turnacliff v. Westly, 546 F.3d 1113 (9th Cir. 2008) (cleaned up). The statute of limitations issue was not addressed in light of Wilkins. The Court found that because the predecessors never acquired any easement over the access road, Kimball-Griffith did not have a property interest. AFFIRMED.