Here are the new materials in State of Texas v. Ysleta del Sur Pueblo (W.D. Tex.):
431 Pueblo Response to Motion for Contempt
468 Pueblo Motion for Summary J
469 Texas Opposition to Motion for Summary J
470 Pueblo Reply in Support of Motion for Summary J
473 Texas Opposition to Motion to Exclude
477 Pueblo Reply in Support of motion to Exclude
News coverage on the show cause hearing here.
Here:
Office of Communications & Outreach, Press Office
400 Maryland Ave., S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20202
MEDIA ADVISORY
EVENT DATE: Friday, Oct 10, 2014
CONTACT: Press Office, (202) 401-1576 or press@ed.gov
U.S. Department of Education Launches First-Ever School Environment Listening Tour for Native American Students
Tour stops set for Wisconsin, Michigan, Oklahoma, New York, California, Alaska and Washington state
The White House Initiative on American Indian and Alaska Native Education (WHIAIANE) and the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights are launching their first-ever school environment listening tour to hear from schools and communities on ways to better meet the unique educational and culturally-related academic needs of Native American students.
The listening sessions will focus on school environment – bullying, student discipline and offensive imagery and symbolism. WHIAIANE will compile the feedback from the tour into a report for President Obama with recommendations on how to ensure that Native American students receive a high quality education.
The first stop on the tour is Friday, Oct. 10, in Franklin, Wisconsin, at the Indian Community School of Milwaukee, followed by another session on Sunday, Oct. 26, in Lacrosse, Wisconsin. Additional listening sessions will be held in coming weeks in Seattle, Washington; Ann Arbor, Michigan; Tulsa, Oklahoma; Oklahoma City, Oklahoma; Troy, New York; Los Angeles, California; and Anchorage, Alaska.
Here is “Indian Gaming: Preliminary Observations on the Regulation and Oversight of Indian Gaming.”
It’s in the news here.
Here again is the order list. The Court denied cert in other Indian law related cases.
Marcussen v. Burwell. Petition here.
Harvest Inst. v. United States. Lower court materials here.
United States v. First. Lower court decision here. Tribal court decision (I think) here.
Yowell v. Abbey. NARF page here.
The Court also denied the petition of a Saginaw Chippewa member to waive costs — Pego v. United States. Lower court decision here.
Here are the materials in Stop the Casino 101 Coalition v. Brown (Cal. App.):
Here are the materials in Anderson v. Duran (N.D. Cal.):
160 Anderson Motion for Summary J
191 Duran Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings
An excerpt:
Plaintiff John Anderson is the Sheriff of Madera County, located outside of Fresno in the Eastern District of California. The specific dispute at issue in this case is but a piece of a larger struggle which began in 2011 for control and direction of the Picayune Rancheria of the Chukchansi Indians (“the Tribe”), a federally recognized tribe. The territory of the Tribe rests wholly within Madera County. At its core, this action represents a reaction by the plaintiff Sherriff to orders he has received from certain tribal factions directing him to intercede against their opponents. While the entirety of the case rests on actions taken within the Central District of California, the parties do not dispute venue in this district as will become apparent below.
In August 2013, individuals purporting to represent the tribal council filed suit in tribal court against Anderson and others seeking damages and injunctive relief. The tribal court issued a temporary restraining order directing Anderson, who is not a member of the Tribe, to take certain steps in execution of his official duties as Sheriff. Shortly thereafter, Anderson filed suit in this Court, seeking a temporary restraining order (“TRO”) and preliminary injunction against the Tribe, affiliated tribal entities, [5] individual members of a group purporting to comprise the legitimate tribal council (the “Lewis Faction”), and the judge and clerk of the purported tribal court (the “Lewis Tribunal”). Anderson sought to prevent any of the individuals or entities from enforcing the TRO issued by the Lewis Tribunal and to stay further proceedings against him in that court. This Court conducted a hearing that same day at which representatives for the Lewis Faction as well as from a competing group, the Ayala Faction, participated. These two groups, along with a third contingent known as the Reid Faction, each purport to represent the Tribal entities in this action. At the conclusion of the hearing, Anderson’s TRO was granted and an order to show cause issued as to his application for a preliminary injunction. The terms of the TRO were later incorporated into a preliminary injunction, which remains in effect.
Anderson now moves for summary judgment, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief against the Tribal entities and the individual defendants. The Lewis/Reid Faction, on behalf of the Tribal entities and individual defendants, opposes that motion and simultaneously moves for judgment on the pleadings [6] or, in the alternative, summary judgment. The Tribal Court defendants, Jack Duran and Donna Howard, join the Lewis/Reid Faction’s opposition and motion. The Ayala Faction, on behalf of the Tribal entities, joins Anderson’s motion and opposes the Lewis/Reid Faction’s counter-motion.
For the reasons set forth below, Anderson’s motion is granted as to the individual defendants. His motion is denied, and the case is dismissed, as to the Tribal entities on the basis of sovereign immunity. The Lewis/Reid Faction’s motion is denied.
We posted previously on this matter here.
Here:
Here.
PDF or Virtual Booklet.
You must be logged in to post a comment.