NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 15 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
GWITCHYAA ZHEE CORPORATION; No. 21-35048
GWICHYAA ZHEE GWICH'IN TRIBAL
GOVERNMENT, D.C. No. 4:18-cv-00016-HRH
Plaintiffs-Appellees,
MEMORANDUM*
v.
CLARENCE ALEXANDER; DEMETRIE
ALEXANDER, (Dacho),
Defendants-third-party-
plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
DAVID BERNHARDT, Secretary of the In-
terior, in his official capacity,
Third-party-defendant-
Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Alaska
H. Russel Holland, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 10, 2021**
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Seattle, Washington
Before: McKEOWN, MILLER, and BADE, Circuit Judges.
Clarence and Demetrie Alexander appeal the district court’s judgment that
Gwitchyaa Zhee Corporation (“GZ”) was entitled to immediate and exclusive pos-
session of the three parcels of land adjacent to Tract 19 of Plat 2014-78, Fairbanks
Recording District, near Ft. Yukon, Alaska. The parties are familiar with the relevant
facts, so we do not recount them here. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
We review de novo the district court’s order granting summary judgment, Momox-
Caselis v. Donohue, 987 F.3d 835, 840 (9th Cir. 2021), and its evidentiary rulings
for abuse of discretion, Clare v. Clare, 982 F.3d 1199, 1201 (9th Cir. 2020). We
affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment to GZ on the Alexan-
ders’ claims under § 14(c) of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, 43 U.S.C.
§ 1613(c)(1). The posting requirement at 43 C.F.R. § 2650.5-4(c)(1) did not require
GZ to post the boundaries of § 14(c) claims before submitting a map of boundaries
to the Bureau of Land Management. In any event, the Alexanders’ claim was barred
by the one-year statute of limitations in 43 U.S.C. § 1632(b). Even if the period
were tolled because the 2008 notice was inadequate, the limitations period has still
expired. In 2011, the Alexanders and their attorney met with the Cadastral Survey
Manager and the president of the Tanana Chiefs Conference to discuss Clarence’s
2
§ 14(c) claim—thus showing that they were on actual notice that Clarence’s § 14(c)
claim did not include all the land that he thought it should. The law of the case
doctrine did not require the district court to reach a contrary result. See Askins v.
U.S. Dept. of Homeland Sec., 899 F.3d 1035, 1042 (9th Cir. 2018) (“The law of the
case doctrine does not preclude a court from reassessing its own legal rulings in the
same case.”).
We also affirm the district court’s determination that the Alexanders’ adverse
possession claim failed as a matter of law. This conclusion did not violate the Al-
exanders’ right to a jury trial, because there were no remaining triable issues of fact.
See Sengupta v. Morrison–Knudsen Co., 804 F.2d 1072, 1077 n.3 (9th Cir. 1986)
(“The Constitution only requires that bona fide fact questions be submitted to a
jury.”). Assuming without deciding that the Alexanders could ever take title to the
land in question by adverse possession, the district court correctly concluded that the
Alexanders’ claim for adverse possession would fail on the hostility prong, since
Clarence affirmatively recognized GZ’s superior title to the land by filing a § 14(c)
claim. See Nome 2000 v. Fagerstrom, 799 P.2d 304, 310 (Alaska 1990); Tenala,
Ltd. v. Fowler, 921 P.2d 1114, 1120 (Alaska 1996).
We do not address the Alexanders’ argument that Plat 2014-78 does not meet
the definition of a subdivision plat under Alaska law. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS,
94 F.3d 1256, 1259 (9th Cir. 1996) (“Issues raised in a brief that are not supported
3
by argument are deemed abandoned.”). In any event, because the Alexanders intro-
duced Plat 2014-78 as evidence in the district court, they “cannot complain on appeal
that the evidence was erroneously admitted.” See Ohler v. United States, 529 U.S.
753, 755 (2000).
Because the district court’s rulings on the merits were not erroneous, neither
was its decision to grant fees to GZ as the prevailing party.
AFFIRMED.
4