Here are the materials so far in Lac Courte Oreilles Band v. Salazar, in the Western District of Wisconsin.
An excerpt from the order:
This is a civil action for declaratory and injunctive relief brought under the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act, 25 U.S.C. § 450j-1(f), in which plaintiff Lac Courte Oreilles asks this court to bar defendants Ken Salazar, George Skibine, Kevin Skenandore and Lynn Lafferty from enforcing a bill for collection issued by the Bureau of Indian Affairs or pursuing any future right or remedy related to any disallowance of costs associated with the Single Agency audit for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2005. The court has original jurisdiction under 25 U.S.C. § 450m-1.
This case is now before the court on defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiff’s complaint under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Defendants assert that because the Bureau of Indian Affairs has cancelled the bill for collection that is the subject of this lawsuit, there is no longer a case or controversy and the complaint must be dismissed. In the alternative, defendants argue that to the extent that plaintiff is concerned about any future dispute regarding the disallowed costs for which defendants issued their bill for collection, such a dispute is not ripe. Plaintiff contends that a case and controversy exists because it has requested that defendants be prevented from pursuing any right of action or remedy related to the disallowance of costs that gave rise to the bill for collection.
Because I conclude that defendants’ cancellation of the bill for collection did not satisfy plaintiff’s entire demand for relief and that it is not clear that defendants will not engage in the activity at issue in the future, this case is not moot. Further, because plaintiff’s requests present a question of law and plaintiff may suffer hardship if a determination is not made, I find that this matter is ripe. Thus, I will deny defendants’ motion to dismiss.
Turtle Talk 