Opinion
Civil No. 04-3056-CO.
July 26, 2004
ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION
The court found that it was unclear from plaintiffs' original complaint if the court had subject matter jurisdiction over this case, and issued a Findings and Recommendation recommending that plaintiffs file an amended complaint. Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. Therefore, it is ordered that the previous Findings and Recommendation is withdrawn. However, the court issues this Findings and Recommendation based on plaintiffs' amended complaint recommending that this action be dismissed against the United States, the Department of the Interior, and the Bureau of Land Management for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
"Subject matter jurisdiction is fundamental." Billingsley v. Commissioner of the I.R.S., 868 F.2d 1081, 1085 (9th Cir. 1989). The court has a continuing duty to dismiss an action whenever it appears that the court lacks jurisdiction. Id. The court sua sponte can raise a jurisdictional defect at any time, leading to the dismissal of the action. See Barnett v. Bailey, 956 F.2d 1036, 1039 (11th Cir. 1992). The Court of Claims has subject matter jurisdiction over claims brought under the taking clause of the Fifth Amendment. Holden v. U.S., 38 Fed.Cl. 732, 734 (1997). In actions against the United States seeking damages of more than $10,000.00, the Court of Claims has exclusive jurisdiction. Security Savings Bank, SLA v. Director, Office of Thrift Supervision, 798 F. Supp. 1067, 1071 (D.N.J. 1992).
Plaintiffs allege in their amended complaint an action for a "taking" against the United States, the Department of Interior, and the BLM seeking damages in the amount of $1,000,000,000.00. (Amended Complaint at 1 and 4). Plaintiffs allege that the Court of Claims has exclusive jurisdiction. (Amended Complaint at 3). Based on the allegations in the amended complaint, the Court of Claims has exclusive jurisdiction over plaintiffs' taking claims against the United States, the Department of the Interior, and the Bureau of Land Management. Therefore, this action should be dismissed against these defendants. See Security Savings Bank, SLA v. Director, Office of Thrift Supervision, 798 F. Supp. 1067, 1071 (D.N.J. 1992).
ORDER
The previous Findings and Recommendation based on plaintiffs' original complaint is withdrawn.
RECOMMENDATION
Based on the foregoing, it is recommended that this action be dismissed as to defendants United States, Department of Interior, and Bureau of Land Management based on lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
This recommendation is not an order that is immediately appealable to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Any notice of appeal pursuant to Rule 4(a)(1), Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, should not be filed until entry of the district court's judgment or appealable order. The parties shall have ten (10) days from the date of service of a copy of this recommendation within which to file specific written objections with the court. Thereafter, the parties have ten (10) days within which to file a response to the objections. Failure to timely file objections to any factual determinations of the Magistrate Judge will be considered a waiver of a party's right to de novo consideration of the factual issues and will constitute a waiver of a party's right to appellate review of the findings of fact in an order or judgment entered pursuant to the Magistrate Judge's recommendation.