Lacano Invs., LLC v. Sullivan, No. 13-35854 (9th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this Case
Plaintiffs allege that they hold land patents, issued by the federal government before Alaska entered the Union, giving title to certain Alaska streambeds. In 2010- 2011, the Alaska Department of Natural Resources determined that the waterways above these streambeds were navigable in 1959, the year Alaska was admitted to the Union, and remain navigable. Under the Submerged Lands Act of 1953, all land beneath such waterways belongs to the state, 43 U.S.C. 1311(a). Plaintiffs argue that Alaska’s determination that the waterways have been navigable since 1959 does not disturb the title to the land that was granted to them and that, under the Act, streambeds that had already been patented by the federal government were not granted to Alaska upon its statehood. The district court dismissed Plaintiffs’ declaratory judgment action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The Ninth Circuit affirmed. Alaska has a sufficient interest in the lands to assert Eleventh Amendment immunity. Plaintiffs’ action was “close to the functional equivalent” of a quiet title action; the lands at issue are submerged lands beneath navigable waters, which have a “unique status in the law” insofar as “[s]tate ownership of them has been considered an essential attribute of sovereignty.”
Court Description: Sovereign Immunity. The panel affirmed the dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction of an action against Alaska officials who determined that under the Submerged Lands Act of 1953, streambeds claimed by the plaintiffs were owned by the State of Alaska. The panel held the plaintiffs could not avoid a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) merely because they asserted in their complaint that Alaska did not own the streambeds. The panel held that state sovereign immunity barred the action because the Ex parte Young doctrine, providing that the Eleventh Amendment does not bar actions when individual citizens seek only injunctive or prospective relief against state officials who would have to implement a state law that is allegedly inconsistent with federal law, did not apply. The panel concluded that under the exception to Ex parte Young set forth in Idaho v. Coeur d’Alene Tribe of Idaho, 521 U.S. 261 (1997), the relief the plaintiffs sought was close to the functional equivalent of quiet title.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.