Jon Saltzman v. United States

N OTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
JON SALTZMAN,
Plaintiff-Appellant
v.
UNITED STATES,
Defendant-Appellee
______________________
2024-1785
______________________
Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims
in No. 1:13-cv-01014-DAT, Judge David A. Tapp.
______________________
Decided: January 23, 2025
______________________
J ON SALTZMAN, Wickenburg, AZ, pro se.
MICHELLE M ELTON, Appellate Section, Environment
and Natural Resources Division, United States Depart-
ment of Justice, Washington, DC, for defendant-appellee.
Also represented by T ODD K IM ; K ATELIN SHUGART -
SCHMIDT , Denver, CO.
______________________
Before P ROST , T ARANTO, and CHEN, Circuit Judges.
Case: 24-1785 Document: 24 Page: 1 Filed: 01/23/2025

-- 1 of 12 --

SALTZMAN v. US 2
P ER CURIAM .
Jon Saltzman appeals the decision of the United States
Court of Federal Claims (Claims Court) dismissing his
complaint for lack of jurisdiction and for failure to state a
claim. Saltzman v. United States, No. 13-cv-1014, 2024 WL
1575211 (Fed. Cl. Apr. 11, 2024) (Decision). While we agree
with the Claims Court that it currently does not possess
the power to adjudicate Mr. Saltzman’s takings claim, we
vacate the Claims Court dismissal for reasons explained
below.
BACKGROUND
I
The General Mining Law of 1872 (Mining Law),
30 U.S.C. §§ 22–54, allows U.S. citizens to explore, dis-
cover, and extract certain minerals on federal lands. The
Bureau of Land Management (BLM), an agency within the
United States Department of the Interior, administers the
Mining Law. See 43 C.F.R. pt. 3830; BLM Handbook H-
3830-1, Administration of Mining Claims, Mill Sites, and
Tunnel Sites (2015).
A valid mining claim is required to exclude others from
valuable deposits discovered on federal lands. The Mining
Law recognizes two types of property rights: unpatented
and patented. See generally 30 U.S.C. §§ 22–54. A valid
unpatented mining claim confers a possessory right to a
mineral deposit and the lands containing it, but not fee ti-
tle. See, e.g., 30 U.S.C. §§ 23, 26, 35–36; 43 C.F.R. § 3830.5
(defining “Unpatented mining claim”). These claims are
“real property” separate from the underlying fee estate,
which remains with the government. Wilbur v. United
States ex rel. Krushnic, 280 U.S. 306, 316–17 (1930) (cita-
tions omitted). Conversely, a patented mining claim re-
sults in “fee title to the land” passing from the government
to the claim holder. Kunkes v. United States, 78 F.3d 1549,
Case: 24-1785 Document: 24 Page: 2 Filed: 01/23/2025

-- 2 of 12 --

SALTZMAN v. US 3
1551 (Fed. Cir. 1996); see 30 U.S.C. §§ 29, 35–36; 43 C.F.R.
pt. 3860.
To obtain a valid unpatented mining claim, a claimant
must “locate” the claim in accordance with applicable stat-
utory and regulatory requirements, record the claim with
BLM, and pay a one-time location fee to BLM. See 30
U.S.C. §§ 28, 28g; 43 U.S.C. § 1744(b); 43 C.F.R. pts. 3830,
3832–34. The most common unpatented mining claims are
“placer” mining claims and “lode” mining claims. See 43
C.F.R. pt. 3832 (describing differences between placer and
lode mining claims). The maximum amount of land al-
lowed per claim depends on the type of claim. Placer min-
ing claims are limited to 20 acres for individual claims but,
for associations, may be aggregated up to 20-acre parcels
per locator, up to a maximum of 160 acres for at least eight
co-locators. Id. § 3832.22(b).
After locating an unpatented mining claim, the claim
holder must comply with applicable statutory and regula-
tory requirements to continue to hold the claim, including,
since 1993, an annual maintenance fee. 30 U.S.C. § 28f.
Prior to 2012, the maintenance fee was calculated per min-
ing claim, regardless of the claim’s size. See 43 C.F.R.
§ 3830.21(d) (2011). As a result, the annual maintenance
fee for a 20-acre placer mining claim was the same as the
fee for a 160-acre claim. In December 2011, Congress
passed the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2012 (2012
CAA), which changed the maintenance fee for placer min-
ing claims from a “per claim” fee to a “per 20-acre” fee. Con-
solidated Appropriations Act, 2012, Pub. L. No. 112-74
§ 430, 125 Stat. 786, 1047 (2011) (codified as amended at
30 U.S.C. § 28f(a)(2)). In July 2012, BLM promulgated a
rule to implement the 2012 CAA. See Administration of
Mining Claims and Sites, 77 Fed. Reg. 44,155 (July 27,
2012) (codified at 43 C.F.R. pt. 3830).
The Department of the Interior retains authority to de-
termine the validity of mining claims as long as the
Case: 24-1785 Document: 24 Page: 3 Filed: 01/23/2025

-- 3 of 12 --

SALTZMAN v. US 4
government holds title to the land (i.e., any unpatented
claim). For certain defects, such as whether the mining
claim was properly recorded and maintained, BLM can it-
self declare a mining claim void. For other defects, BLM
may initiate a contest proceeding, which is adjudicated by
an administrative law judge (ALJ) within the Department
of the Interior, who issues a written decision at the end of
the proceeding. Decisions in either case can be appealed
directly to the Interior Board of Land Appeals (IBLA). 43
C.F.R. §§ 3830.100; 4.452-9. An IBLA decision is a final
agency action for the purposes of judicial review. 43 C.F.R.
§§ 4.21(d), 4.403. Judicial review of IBLA decisions may
proceed only in district court under the Administrative
Procedure Act (APA). 5 U.S.C. §§ 701–06.
II
In 2005, Mr. Saltzman became an unpatented placer
mining claim holder of 103 different 160-acre claims in Ar-
izona under the Mining Law. Decision, 2024 WL 1575211,
at *2. Prior to the 2012 CAA, Mr. Saltzman was required
to pay an annual maintenance fee for each of his 103
claims. But because of the 2012 CAA’s new “per 20-acre”
fee structure, Mr. Saltzman’s fees increased from $14,420
to $115,360 per year. Id. at *3.
In December 2013, Mr. Saltzman filed a complaint in
the Claims Court, alleging that all 103 of his placer mining
claims had been taken without just compensation by the
2012 CAA and requesting compensation in the amount of
$219,733,270. Id. at *1, *6. The government moved to stay
the proceedings so that BLM could determine if Mr. Saltz-
man’s mining claims were valid, and thus whether he had
any cognizable property interest that could be taken. Id.
at *3. The Claims Court granted the stay, and in 2015,
BLM began to examine Mr. Saltzman’s claims under a
lengthy, multi-phase schedule. At Phase I, BLM would as-
sess threshold requirements to determine if Mr. Saltzman
complied with location and recordation requirements. Id.
Case: 24-1785 Document: 24 Page: 4 Filed: 01/23/2025

-- 4 of 12 --

SALTZMAN v. US 5
at *4. If any of Mr. Saltzman’s mining claims were de-
clared void at Phase I, there would be no Phase II with re-
spect to those claims, and Mr. Saltzman could appeal to the
IBLA. Id. At Phase II, BLM would conduct a more in-
depth analysis to determine whether Mr. Saltzman had
discovered “valuable mineral deposits,” as required by stat-
ute, and thus had valid mining claims. Id.; see also 30
U.S.C. § 22. If BLM found any of his claims void at Phase
II, it would initiate a contest proceeding, and Mr. Saltzman
could appeal an adverse determination by the ALJ to the
IBLA. Id. at *4 n.9. Additionally, Mr. Saltzman could chal-
lenge any adverse decision of the IBLA in district court.
In October 2015, under Phase I, BLM found that 96 of
Mr. Saltzman’s 103 mining claims were void. Decision,
2024 WL 1575211, at *4. Mr. Saltzman appealed 73 of
those 96 claims to the IBLA, which affirmed BLM’s voiding
of three of the claims and remanded the remaining 70 to
BLM. See Jon Saltzman, 195 IBLA 386, 2020 WL 5439293
(Aug. 19, 2020). BLM moved for the IBLA to reconsider the
70 claims that were remanded. In September 2023, the
IBLA granted BLM’s motion, vacated in part its earlier de-
cision, and affirmed BLM’s determination that those 70
mining claims were void. Jon Saltzman, 198 IBLA 203,
2023 WL 6797654 (Sept. 29, 2023).
Meanwhile, the seven of Mr. Saltzman’s mining claims
that were not found void at Phase I proceeded to Phase II.
In June 2019, following a contest proceeding, the ALJ de-
termined that those seven claims were void ab initio. De-
cision, 2024 WL 1575211, at *4. Mr. Saltzman appealed
that decision, and in June 2024, the IBLA affirmed. Jon
Saltzman, 199 IBLA 1, 2024 WL 3508083 (June 26, 2024).
While the two separate IBLA appeals were pending,
the Claims Court lifted the stay and ordered the govern-
ment to file a dispositive motion by October 26, 2023. See
Decision, 2024 WL 1575211, at *3. The government filed a
motion to dismiss pursuant to Rules of the United States
Case: 24-1785 Document: 24 Page: 5 Filed: 01/23/2025

-- 5 of 12 --

SALTZMAN v. US 6
Court of Federal Claims (RCFC) 12(b)(1) and 12(c), and the
Claims Court granted the motion in April 2024. See id. at
*3 n.7, *9. At the time of the Claims Court decision, the
IBLA had declared all of Mr. Saltzman’s mining claims
void at Phase I but had not yet ruled on the Phase II claims.
The Claims Court concluded first that it lacked subject-
matter jurisdiction over Mr. Saltzman’s takings claim be-
cause he had not established a valid property interest in
any mining claim, as BLM had administratively deter-
mined (even without an IBLA ruling on the 7 claims BLM
had voided at phase II) all 103 of his mining claims to be
invalid. Id. at *6–7. Alternatively, even if Mr. Saltzman
had a valid mining claim, the Claims Court concluded that
Mr. Saltzman’s complaint must be dismissed because the
2012 CAA did not constitute a taking. Id. at *7–8. Accord-
ingly, the Claims Court dismissed Mr. Saltzman’s suit for
lack of jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim. Id. at
*9.
Mr. Saltzman timely appealed. We have jurisdiction
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(3).
D ISCUSSION
We review dismissals by the Claims Court for lack of
jurisdiction de novo. Frazer v. United States, 288 F.3d
1347, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2002). The plaintiff must establish
the Claims Court’s jurisdiction by a preponderance of the
evidence. Taylor v. United States, 303 F.3d 1357, 1359
(Fed. Cir. 2002). Unrepresented plaintiffs are not held to
as stringent a pleading standard as represented parties.
See Hughes v. Rowe, 449 U.S. 5, 15 (1980) (per curiam).
However, this principle does not relieve an unrepresented
plaintiff of the obligation to establish jurisdiction. See Kel-
ley v. Sec’y, U.S. Dep’t of Lab., 812 F.2d 1378, 1380 (Fed.
Cir. 1987).
Case: 24-1785 Document: 24 Page: 6 Filed: 01/23/2025

-- 6 of 12 --

SALTZMAN v. US 7
I
For the Claims Court to have subject-matter jurisdic-
tion over a takings claim, a plaintiff “must identify a valid
property interest.” Shelden v. United States, 742 F. App’x
496, 500 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (per curiam) (cleaned up) (quoting
Air Pegasus of D.C., Inc. v. United States, 424 F.3d 1206,
1212–13 (Fed. Cir. 2005)); see also CRV Enters. v. United
States, 626 F.3d 1241, 1249 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (“It is well es-
tablished that ‘only persons with a valid property interest
at the time of the taking are entitled to compensation.’”
(quoting Wyatt v. United States, 271 F.3d 1090, 1096 (Fed.
Cir. 2001))).
In Aulston v. United States, 823 F.2d 510 (Fed. Cir.
1987), the Claims Court dismissed a takings claim for lack
of jurisdiction after the IBLA affirmed the government’s
ownership of the property at issue. Id. at 511. We deter-
mined that the Claims Court “properly held that it lacked
the power to decide appellants’ Fifth Amendment taking
case in its present procedural posture in view of the
[IBLA’s] prior adjudication that appellants had no owner-
ship rights.” Id. We further explained that the “IBLA de-
cision marked the exhaustion of appellants’ administrative
remedies and constituted final agency action,” making it
“clear that the Claims Court correctly decided that . . . [it]
lacked jurisdiction at this time to entertain appellants’ tak-
ing suit.” Id. at 513–14.
Mr. Saltzman’s case is indistinguishable from Aulston.
The IBLA has issued three final determinations collec-
tively invalidating 80 of Mr. Saltzman’s mining claims. See
Jon Saltzman, 195 IBLA 386, 2020 WL 5439293 (Aug. 19,
2020) (affirming BLM’s 2015 decisions that three mining
claims were void); Jon Saltzman, 198 IBLA 203, 2023 WL
6797654 (Sept. 29, 2023) (affirming BLM’s 2015 decisions
that 70 mining claims were void); Jon Saltzman, 199 IBLA
1, 2024 WL 3508083 (June 26, 2024) (affirming the ALJ’s
2019 decision that seven mining claims were void ab
Case: 24-1785 Document: 24 Page: 7 Filed: 01/23/2025

-- 7 of 12 --

SALTZMAN v. US 8
initio).1 As to the remaining 23 of Mr. Saltzman’s mining
claims, BLM determined they were void at Phase I, and
Mr. Saltzman declined to appeal them to the IBLA or a ju-
dicial forum. Accordingly, the Department of the Interior
has determined that each of Mr. Saltzman’s 103 mining
claims were invalid, leaving Mr. Saltzman without a cog-
nizable property interest and the Claims Court without
subject-matter jurisdiction over his takings claim.
Mr. Saltzman’s arguments on appeal are unconvincing.
Initially, he states that his “[m]ining claims were valid.”
Appellant’s Informal Br. 4. To the extent Mr. Saltzman is
challenging the merits of the Department of the Interior’s
decisions, “[n]either the Claims Court nor this court is em-
powered to review IBLA decisions.” Taylor Energy Co. v.
Dep’t of the Interior, 990 F.3d 1303, 1310; see also Aulston,
823 F.2d at 514 (“[W]here the administrative agencies of
the Interior Department have decided that the United
States (not the claimants) own the disputed property, the
Court of Claims could not review or overturn that adminis-
trative determination even though that court indisputably
had jurisdiction over ‘taking’ claims.”).
Mr. Saltzman also appears to argue that BLM con-
verted his mining claims to patented claims. Appellant’s
Informal Br. 6 (“Reason is that the subject claims were con-
verted to fee claims by BLM when they transferred the
claims to Saltzman.”); see also id. at 9, 12. He is incorrect.
Since 1994, Congress has imposed a moratorium that bars
BLM from processing new mining patent applications. See
Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2024, Pub. L. No. 118-42,
1 To the extent that Mr. Saltzman argues the Claims
Court should have deferred ruling on the government’s dis-
positive motion until the pending IBLA case was resolved,
that argument is now moot. The IBLA has issued its final
determination on the last of Mr. Saltzman’s seven mining
claims, affirming the BLM that they were void.
Case: 24-1785 Document: 24 Page: 8 Filed: 01/23/2025

-- 8 of 12 --

SALTZMAN v. US 9
§ 404, 138 Stat. 25, 284. All of Mr. Saltzman’s unpatented
claims were located after 2001.
Additionally, Mr. Saltzman asserts that BLM’s actions
are prohibited by the statute of limitations. See, e.g., Ap-
pellant’s Informal Br. 4, 6, 8. But there is no statute of
limitations barring the Department of the Interior’s valid-
ity determinations. The Supreme Court has long recog-
nized that, with respect to unpatented mining claims, the
government “does have power, after proper notice and upon
adequate hearing, to determine whether the claim is valid
and, if it be found invalid, to declare it null and void.” Best
v. Humboldt Placer Mining Co., 371 U.S. 334, 337 (1963)
(citation omitted).
Finally, Mr. Saltzman is incorrect when he contends
that BLM validated his mining claims through its ac-
ceptance of his required payments. See, e.g., Appellant’s
Informal Br. 6–11, 20. Acceptance of required fees does not
render a mining claim valid. See Durand v. Haaland, No.
20-cv-338, 2021 WL 4191972, at *4 (D.D.C. Sept. 15, 2021)
(“[B]y law, the BLM’s acceptance of fees and filings indi-
cates nothing about the validity of the underlying claims.”),
aff’d, No. 21-5222, 2022 WL 2714552 (D.C. Cir. July 13,
2022) (per curiam); 43 C.F.R. § 3832.11(b); see also 43
C.F.R. § 3830.22(b)(2) (allowing refunds of fees on claims
later determined to be “void” when paid).
II
But this is not the end of Mr. Saltzman’s journey. As
this court has noted, “judicial review of IBLA decisions may
proceed only in district court under the APA.” Taylor En-
ergy, 990 F.3d at 1310. Under 28 U.S.C. § 2401(a), there is
a six-year deadline to seek judicial review of an IBLA deci-
sion. Both the Claims Court and the government were well
aware of this. See Decision, 2024 WL 1575211, at *6 n.12
(“Importantly, the [c]ourt raised potential proceedings in
district court multiple times with the parties, but Mr.
Saltzman has not challenged Interior’s decisions in district
Case: 24-1785 Document: 24 Page: 9 Filed: 01/23/2025

-- 9 of 12 --

SALTZMAN v. US 10
court.”); Appellee’s Br. 22 n.11 (“Mr. Saltzman has a right
to seek further review in district court of the IBLA deci-
sions—a right he has never stated that he intends to uti-
lize”).
Now, however, Mr. Saltzman has chosen to exercise
that right. In October 2023, Mr. Saltzman moved for re-
consideration of the IBLA’s September 2023 decision,
wherein the IBLA affirmed BLM’s determination that 70
of the mining claims were void. The IBLA denied
Mr. Saltzman’s motion for reconsideration in October 2024.
Then, on January 6, 2025, Mr. Saltzman filed a complaint
in the United States District Court for the District of Ari-
zona challenging that denial and requesting that the dis-
trict court find those 70 claims valid. Complaint,
Saltzman v. United States Dep’t of the Interior, No. 25-CV-
00020 (D. Ariz. Jan. 6, 2025), ECF No. 1.
If Mr. Saltzman succeeds in obtaining a reversal, then
the Claims Court would have jurisdiction to review his tak-
ings claim on the merits for those valid mining claims.
Aulston is instructive here too. In Aulston, we noted that
the appellants “must first obtain a proper reversal of the
adverse IBLA ruling” before continuing to “press their tak-
ing claim before the Claims Court.” 823 F.2d at 513. Alt-
hough we agreed with the Claims Court that, “given the
present procedural posture,” it “lacked jurisdiction at this
time to entertain appellants’ taking suit,” we nonetheless
vacated its dismissal “pending resolution of the [validity]
issues in a district court proceeding.” Id. at 514. Because
the judicial resolution of the threshold property rights
question could take considerable time, the Aulston court
aptly observed that an affirmance of the dismissal “en-
hances to a near certainty the risk that the statute of limi-
tations will run on appellants’ taking claim and extinguish
their rights.” Id.
Mr. Saltzman potentially faces the same risk.
Mr. Saltzman filed his original suit in the Claims Court in
Case: 24-1785 Document: 24 Page: 10 Filed: 01/23/2025

-- 10 of 12 --

SALTZMAN v. US 11
2013, alleging that the 2012 CAA constituted a taking. Un-
der the Tucker Act, a takings claim must be filed within six
years after the claim accrues. 28 U.S.C. § 2501. Depending
on the date of accrual, dismissing Mr. Saltzman’s suit now
“may prove lethal” to his takings claim.2 Aulston, 823 F.2d
at 514. Accordingly, while the Claims Court currently
lacks jurisdiction over Mr. Saltzman’s takings claim, a stay
is warranted, as it was in Aulston. This allows Mr. Saltz-
man to pursue his appellate rights and potentially secure
a reversal of the adverse IBLA determinations, while pre-
serving his ability to pursue a valid takings claim before
the Claims Court.
Because the Claims Court currently lacks jurisdiction,
we do not decide whether it correctly dismissed Mr. Saltz-
man’s takings claim for failure to state a claim.
CONCLUSION
We have considered the parties’ remaining arguments
and find them unpersuasive. For the foregoing reasons, we
vacate. As in Aultson, we “direct the Claims Court to hold
[Mr. Saltzman’s] taking claim on its docket in suspension
2 We note that the accrual standard might solve the
untimeliness problem. In Reoforce, Inc. v. United States,
we explained that a takings claim “will not accrue until the
claim is ripe.” 853 F.3d 1249, 1264 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (cita-
tion omitted). Specifically, in the context of unpatented
mining claims, we determined that a takings claim did not
ripen until the claim holder could “demonstrate the exist-
ence of a legally cognizable property interest,” which was
after the validity determinations concluded. Id. at 1265.
That said, we think it is best not to decide that question
here. The more appropriate course of action is to stay the
case at the Claims Court while Mr. Saltzman challenges
the IBLA decisions.
Case: 24-1785 Document: 24 Page: 11 Filed: 01/23/2025

-- 11 of 12 --

SALTZMAN v. US 12
for such time as is reasonably necessary for [Mr. Saltzman]
to challenge the IBLA decision in a district court, and, if
successful there, to return promptly to the Claims Court.”
Id. at 514.
VACATED
Costs
Costs to appellant.
Case: 24-1785 Document: 24 Page: 12 Filed: 01/23/2025

-- 12 of 12 --