Here is the opinion ins Springer v. Griffin (D. Neb.), a claim against the Omaha Tribe — Springer v Griffin
An excerpt:
Liberally construed, Plaintiff brings his claims pursuant to the Indian Gaming Regulation Act (“IGRA”). 25 U.S.C. §§ 2701-2721. The IRGA provides Indian tribes with the authority to distribute gaming proceeds to tribal members, per capita, if such distribution is in compliance with an approved allocation plan. See 25 U.S.C. § 2710(b)(3). It is unclear from Plaintiff’s Complaint if the Omaha Tribe has such an approved plan. However, even if it does, whether Plaintiff is entitled to the tribe’s casino proceeds turns on a determination of whether Plaintiff is a tribal member.
If Plaintiff is not a tribal member, the court lacks jurisdiction to over his claims. As discussed above, a tribe has the exclusive authority to determine its membership. There is no greater intrusion upon tribal sovereignty than for a federal court to interfere with this determination. See Smith, 100 F.3d at 559.
If Plaintiff is a tribal member, Defendants’ act of sending his checks to another “Springer Family” member is not a dispute over IGRA compliance, but rather compliance with the tribe’s approved allocation plan. If Plaintiff’s claim is that Defendants violated allocation plan procedures, his remedy is in Tribal Court. See, e.g., Montgomery v. Flandreau Santee Sioux Tribe, 905 F.Supp. 740, 747 (D.S.D 1995) (citing Runs After v. United States, 766 F.2d 347, 352 (8th Cir. 1985) (holding that resolution of tribal law disputes are not within federal court jurisdiction)).
In sum, the court lacks jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s Complaint and it must be dismissed. However, the court will dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint without prejudice to reassertion in the proper forum.
Turtle Talk 