Harris v. United States

Background

Smiley James Harris filed the petition without a lawyer. He sought to quiet title, meaning he asked the court to determine ownership of real property and bar competing claims. The petition concerned 598.76 acres at 11742 High Glade Road, Lucerne, California. Harris requested a judgment declaring him the fee-simple owner and barring the defendant USA, or anyone acting on its behalf, from asserting any right, title, or interest in the property.

The court described the filing as the second version of Harris’s effort to bring this matter before it. In an earlier related proceeding, filed under the name Harris Enterprises LLC, the court dismissed the case for failure to prosecute and because a fictional entity could not proceed without a lawyer. In the current petition, Harris alleged that Harris Enterprises LLC acquired the property from the Lake County Tax Collector after a payment of $187.26. He also alleged that Harris Enterprises LLC later conveyed the property to him and identified a later deed correction.

Why the Court Dismissed the Petition

Because Harris was proceeding without paying the filing fee, the court screened the petition under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). That statute requires dismissal of a case that is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim, or seeks money from a defendant immune from such relief.

The court explained that the Quiet Title Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2409a, is the exclusive way to challenge the United States’ title to real property in federal court. The Act requires a plaintiff to describe in detail the plaintiff’s claimed right, title, or interest; how that interest was acquired; and the right, title, or interest claimed by the United States. The Act also does not allow suits against the United States based on adverse possession.

The court found Harris’s description of his own interest insufficient. The petition did not provide a particularized description of how or through which deed the property was allegedly conveyed by Lake County to Harris Enterprises LLC. The court ordered that any amended pleading include details about the alleged acquisition, including a copy of the alleged January 2018 deed if one exists.

The court also found Harris’s description of the United States’ claimed interest insufficient. The petition stated only that “Defendant USA” claimed an unknown interest that was adverse and prejudicial. The court said Harris, rather than the United States, had to identify that claimed interest with particularity. It also ordered Harris to clarify whether “Defendant USA” referred to the United States of America and, if so, to describe the exact interest the United States claimed.

Disposition

The court dismissed the petition without prejudice. It allowed Harris one opportunity to file an amended complaint or petition addressing the identified defects, and ordered him to do so within 30 days after service of the order. The court stated that failure to file a timely amended pleading may result in dismissal with prejudice. The court did not decide who owned the property or determine the merits of the competing title claims.