Monti Pavatea Gilham v. United States

N OTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
MONTI PAVATEA GILHAM,
Plaintiff-Appellant
v.
UNITED STATES,
Defendant-Appellee
______________________
2023-1507
______________________
Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims
in No. 1:22-cv-00728-RAH, Judge Richard A. Hertling.
______________________
Decided: September 8, 2023
______________________
J UDD J ENSEN, Browning, Kaleczyc, Berry, & Hoven PC,
Bozeman, MT, for plaintiff-appellant.
D INA BERNICK M ISHRA, Appellate Section, Environ-
ment and Natural Resources Division, United States De-
partment of Justice, Washington, DC, for defendant-
appellee. Also represented by T ODD K IM .
______________________
Before D YK, HUGHES , and STOLL , Circuit Judges.
P ER CURIAM .
Case: 23-1507 Document: 25 Page: 1 Filed: 09/08/2023

-- 1 of 8 --

GILHAM v. US 2
Monti Pavatea Gilham appeals a decision of the Court
of Federal Claims (“Claims Court”). The Claims Court dis-
missed Ms. Gilham’s complaint for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction. We affirm.
BACKGROUND
The following facts are primarily taken from the com-
plaint filed by Ms. Gilham in this action. Ms. Gilham is a
citizen of Montana and an enrolled member of the Black-
feet Tribe. Upon her father’s death, Ms. Gilham took over
upkeep of the family’s farming and ranching operations on
tribal land within the Blackfeet Indian Reservation. In
2007, Ms. Gilham signed two contracts enrolling two par-
cels of land in the Department of Agriculture’s Farm Ser-
vice Agency (“FSA”) Conservation Reserve Program
(“CRP”).
The CRP is a program that seeks to “conserve and im-
prove the soil, water, and wildlife resources” of land en-
rolled in the program. 16 U.S.C. § 3831(a). The program
is administered by the Commodity Credit Corporation and
the FSA (both agencies of the federal government). 7
C.F.R. § 1410.1. Under the program, “eligible producers”1
may enter into contracts with the Commodity Credit Cor-
poration whereby the producer agrees to implement a con-
servation plan in return for payments to the producer. Id.
§§ 1410.3(a); 1410.20; 1410.40. The regulations separately
define a “participant” as “one who participates in, or
1 A “producer” is “an owner, operator, landlord, ten-
ant, or sharecropper, who shares in the risk of producing a
crop and who is entitled to share in the crop available for
marketing from the farm, or would have shared had the
crop been produced.” 7 C.F.R. § 718.2. It is unclear from
the record how Ms. Gilham qualifies as a “eligible pro-
ducer”—whether as an “operator” or “tenant” for in-
stance—but no party contests her status as an eligible
producer.
Case: 23-1507 Document: 25 Page: 2 Filed: 09/08/2023

-- 2 of 8 --

GILHAM v. US 3
receives payments or benefits in accordance with” the pro-
gram. Id. § 718.2. The participant has obligations under
the regulations, such as complying with the terms and con-
ditions of the contract. Id. § 1410.20. If a CRP contract is
terminated prematurely, the participant must repay all
payments made under the contract with interest. Id.
§ 1410.32(e)(2). “[I]f the participant has a share of the an-
nual rental payment greater than zero” the participant is
jointly and severally liable for compliance with the contract
and the regulations. Id. § 1410.20(a)(9).
The contracts at issue here were for the period between
October 1, 2007, and September 30, 2017.2 Representa-
tives of the Bureau of Indian Affairs (“BIA”) co-signed the
contracts on behalf of the United States as trustee of Black-
feet tribal land. Ms. Gilham signed with a 100% share of
the contract proceeds, while the BIA representatives
signed with a 0% share. Under the agreements, Ms. Gil-
ham agreed “[t]o control . . . all weeds, insects, pests and
other undesirable species.” J.A. 59. The agreements also
provided that “[p]articipants that sign the [agreement]
with zero percent interest in the annual rental payment
shall not be held responsible for contract performance.”
J.A. 63.
Around 2015, Ms. Gilham fled an abusive relationship,
leaving the farm and enrolling in school in Missoula, Mon-
tana. She did not update her address with the FSA. Dur-
ing 2015, the FSA tried to contact Ms. Gilham at the farm
address regarding maintenance that needed to be done un-
der the contracts. According to the complaint, Ms. Gilham
“did eventually receive an email . . . stating she needed to
take care of this maintenance and that it was time sensi-
tive. However, between being trapped in a physically abu-
sive relationship and the emotional trauma of her attacks;
2 For reasons not clear from the complaint, Ms. Gil-
ham signed two contracts in 2015 enrolling the same tracts
of land in the CRP for the same time period.
Case: 23-1507 Document: 25 Page: 3 Filed: 09/08/2023

-- 3 of 8 --

GILHAM v. US 4
she couldn’t possibly react or respond.” J.A. 23. Ms. Gil-
ham admits that her “serious and traumatic life altering
events prevented her from properly addressing the mainte-
nance on her CRP acres at issue and the maintenance was
not completed timely.” J.A. 23. The FSA terminated the
contracts in November 2015. On October 20, 2015, Ms. Gil-
ham was sent a letter notifying her of the pending termi-
nation.
In 2021, Ms. Gilham requested equitable relief to allow
her to retain the payments made to her under the contract
from the Department of Agricultures’ National Appeals Di-
vision based on “the impact of domestic violence and the
resulting depression which resulted in losing her CRP con-
tracts.” J.A. 23. Ms. Gilham was apparently awarded all
the equitable relief she requested, including that she was
not required to repay the CRP funds she had received be-
fore contract termination.
In June 2022, Ms. Gilham filed a complaint in the
Claims Court pleading two causes of action. First, Ms. Gil-
ham alleged that the United States violated its duties un-
der the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”) by
(1) “fail[ing] to carry out its basic contractual duties under
the CRP contracts . . . such as routine weed maintenance”
which “resulted in the early termination of Ms. Gilham’s
CRP contract,” J.A. 25, and by (2) “fail[ing] . . . to provide
[Ms. Gilham with] reasonable assistance to obtain equita-
ble relief after the contracts were terminated,” J.A. 25–26.
Second, Ms. Gilham alleged that the United States violated
its trust duties by failing to provide maintenance under the
contract. Ms. Gilham did not assert a breach of contract
claim. Ms. Gilham requested a declaration that the United
States failed to carry out its trustee duties, damages for
“those years of the CRP contract that she was never paid
following the early termination of those contracts,” attor-
ney’s fees and costs, and any other just and proper relief.
J.A. 27.
Case: 23-1507 Document: 25 Page: 4 Filed: 09/08/2023

-- 4 of 8 --

GILHAM v. US 5
The government moved to dismiss Ms. Gilham’s com-
plaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The Claims
Court granted the government’s motion, holding that “[t]he
claims, as pleaded, do not rely on a money-mandating stat-
ute or regulation,” J.A. 3, and that part of the APA claim
and the entire breach of trust claim was also untimely.3
Ms. Gilham appealed. We have jurisdiction under 28
U.S.C. § 1295(a)(3).
D ISCUSSION
We review dismissals for lack of subject matter juris-
diction de novo. Fairholme Funds, Inc. v. United States, 26
F.4th 1274, 1284 (Fed. Cir. 2022).
Ms. Gilham argues that the Claims Court had jurisdic-
tion under the Tucker Act and erred by failing to apply the
trust doctrine to the claims in her complaint, apparently
arguing that the statute and the CRP regulations are
money-mandating and that the Claims Court accordingly
had jurisdiction.4
Tucker Act jurisdiction “[i]n the context of breach of du-
ties to American Indians” employs a two-part test. Fletcher
v. United States, 26 F.4th 1314, 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2022).
First, a plaintiff “must identify a substantive source of law
that establishes specific fiduciary or other duties, and al-
lege that the Government has failed faithfully to perform
those duties.” Id. (quoting United States v. Navajo Nation,
3 On appeal, the parties dispute whether the statute
of limitations bars part of Ms. Gilham’s claims. We do not
reach this issue because there is another jurisdictional
ground for dismissal.
4 On appeal, Ms. Gilham does not appear to be chal-
lenging the Claims Court’s disposition of her APA claim.
Even if she were, the Claims Court correctly dismissed
those claims. The Claims Court does not have jurisdiction
over claims premised only on violations of the APA. Mar-
tinez v. United States, 333 F.3d 1295, 1311 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
Case: 23-1507 Document: 25 Page: 5 Filed: 09/08/2023

-- 5 of 8 --

GILHAM v. US 6
556 U.S. 287, 290 (2009)). At this step, “[t]here must be
specific statutes, regulations, or other sources of law that
establish the fiduciary relationship and define the contours
of the government's fiduciary responsibilities.” Id. at 1325
(internal quotation marks and citations omitted). If the
plaintiff shows such a duty, “[t]he court must then deter-
mine whether the relevant source of substantive law can
fairly be interpreted as mandating compensation for dam-
ages sustained as a result of a breach of the duties the gov-
erning law imposes.” Id. (internal quotation marks and
citation omitted). We conclude that Ms. Gilham has failed
to “identify a substantive source of law that establishes
specific fiduciary or other duties.” Id. at 1324 (citation
omitted).
Section 3831 of Title 16 of the U.S. Code establishes the
CRP and was originally enacted as part of the Food Secu-
rity Act of 1985, Pub. L. No. 99-198, § 1231, 99 Stat. 1354,
1509. In its current form, the statute provides that “the
Secretary shall formulate and carry out a conservation re-
serve program under which land is enrolled through the
use of contracts to assist owners and operators of land . . .
to conserve and improve the soil, water, and wildlife re-
sources of such land and to address issues raised by State,
regional, and national conservation initiatives.” 16 U.S.C.
§ 3831(a). The statute describes various aspects of the pro-
gram, such as what land is eligible, the maximum acreage
the Secretary may enroll at any given time, and minimum
and maximum durations of contracts. The statute does not
mention Indian tribes or tribal land.
Part 1410 of Title 7 of the Code of Federal Regulations
implements the CRP. The regulations have some special
provisions regarding Indian Tribes, see, e.g., 7 C.F.R.
§§ 1410.2, 1410.62(f), though those provisions do not ap-
pear to be applicable here. In particular, the regulations
provide for a “Transition Incentive Program” that provides
incentives for “selling or leasing land to a . . . socially dis-
advantaged farmer,” id. § 1410.64(e), including “American
Indians.” Id. § 1410.2. No party contends that the
Case: 23-1507 Document: 25 Page: 6 Filed: 09/08/2023

-- 6 of 8 --

GILHAM v. US 7
Transition Incentive Program is relevant to this case. The
regulations also allow the Commodity Credit Corporation
to authorize incentives to “foster opportunities for Indian
Tribes.” Id. § 1410.62(f). No party has cited this provision
either. The only regulation Ms. Gilham explicitly cites on
appeal is 7 C.F.R. § 1410.32, which requires that the con-
tract be signed by “[t]he owners of the land,” id.
§ 1410.32(d)(2), in this case, the BIA as the representative
of the United States.
We find that the statute and regulations do not create
a trust relationship.5 First, the statute does not mention
“trust.” “While it is true that a statute need not contain
the word ‘trust’ in order to create a trust relationship, the
failure to use that term gives rise to doubt that a trust re-
lationship was intended.” Wolfchild v. United States, 559
F.3d 1228, 1238 (Fed. Cir. 2009). Ms. Gilham also points
to no indication in the statute itself nor the legislative his-
tory that Congress intended to create a trust relationship.
There is similarly nothing in the regulations purporting to
create a trust relationship.
Second, the statute is a generally applicable statute not
specific to Indian tribes. The intent of the legislation was
to “discourage new cultivation of fragile lands that are un-
suitable for intensive agricultural production without the
application of proper conservation practices.” S. Rep. No.
98-296, at 2 (1983), not to protect Indian tribes. “[U]nless
Congress has created a conventional trust relationship
with a tribe as to a particular trust asset, [courts] will not
apply common-law trust principles to infer duties not found
in the text of a treaty, statute, or regulation.” Arizona v.
Navajo Nation, 143 S. Ct. 1804, 1814 (2023) (internal quo-
tation marks and citation omitted). Nothing in the statute
establishes a trust relationship with Indian tribes.
5 We do not decide whether a regulation could in and
of itself create a trust relationship.
Case: 23-1507 Document: 25 Page: 7 Filed: 09/08/2023

-- 7 of 8 --

GILHAM v. US 8
Third, it is particularly clear that there is no trust re-
lationship in this situation because there was no obligation
placed on the government by the statute or regulation sim-
ilar to that claimed by Ms. Gilham. There are no relevant
“specific rights-creating or duty-imposing statutory or reg-
ulatory prescriptions.” United States v. Navajo Nation, 537
U.S. 488, 506 (2003). The regulations contemplate that
participants with “a share of the annual rental payment
greater than zero” are responsible “for compliance with the
provisions of such CRP contract and the provisions of this
part.” 7 C.F.R. § 1410.20(a)(9). In this case, the BIA signed
with a 0% share, and was not obligated by regulation to
perform on the contract. Nor is there anything in the stat-
ute or regulations that would obligate the government “to
assist [Ms. Gilham] in obtaining reasonable relief under
the CRP contracts.” Appellant’s Br. 18.6
We have considered Ms. Gilham’s other arguments and
find them unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED
COSTS
No costs.
6 To the extent that Ms. Gilham is arguing that a
contract in itself could create the requisite trust relation-
ship—a question we do not decide—these contracts clearly
did not do so. The BIA signed the contracts as a 0% share
participant. The contracts specifically provided that “[p]ar-
ticipants that sign the [contract] with zero percent interest
in the annual rental payment shall not be held responsible
for contract compliance.” J.A. 63.
Case: 23-1507 Document: 25 Page: 8 Filed: 09/08/2023

-- 8 of 8 --