Non-Indian Reckless Driver Arrested by Tribal Police Doesn’t Like It, but Still Loses

Here is the unpublished opinion in State v. Ziegler (Minn. Ct. App.):

Opinion

Federal Court Dismisses Habeas Petition Based on Murphy v. Royal as Time-Barred

Here are the materials in Barbre v. Whitten (E.D. Okla.):

1 Habeas Petition

7 Motion to Dismiss

8 Response

13 DCT Order

Ninth Circuit Briefs in Yakama v. County Criminal Jurisdiction Appeal

Here are the briefs in Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation v. City of Toppenish:

Opening Brief

Appellee Brief

state-amicus-brief.pdf

us-amicus-brief.pdf

reply-1.pdf

Lower court materials here.

Mille Lacs Ojibwe Law Enforcement Suit against Mille Lacs County

Here are the materials in Mille Lacs Band of Ojibwe v. County of Mille Lacs (D. Minn.):

1 Complaint

17 County Answer + Counterclaim

27 MTD Counterclaim

35 Response

38 Reply

46 DCT Order Dismissing Counterclaims

72 Magistrate Letter

73 Objection to Letter

76 DCT Order

Federal Prisoner’s Effort to Invoke Murphy v. Royal Decision Fails

Here are the materials in United States v. Springer (N.D. Okla.):

301 Motion for Relief

302 Motion to Order US Response

303 US Response

305 Reply

 

306 DCT Order

 

 

Ninth Circuit Affirms Major Crimes Act Conviction

Here is the opinion in United States v. Begay.

Ninth Circuit Partially Reinstates Section 1983 Claim against San Bernardino County Law Enforcement

Here is the opinion in Chemehuevi Indian Tribe v. McMahon.

An excerpt:

It is undisputed that the Sheriff cannot enforce regulatory traffic laws in “Indian country.” See 18 U.S.C. § 1162; 28 U.S.C. § 1360. “Indian country” includes, but is not limited to, land within the boundaries of a reservation. 18 U.S.C. § 1151. The issues for decision today are (1) whether the individual Tribe members and the Tribe can challenge the citations through a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action; and, if so, (2) whether Section 36 is Indian country. We hold that the individual plaintiffs, but not the Tribe, can challenge the citations under § 1983. And, we conclude that all the citations occurred within Indian country. We therefore vacate the district court’s judgment dismissing the complaint as to the individuals but affirm the judgment as to the Tribe.

Briefs here.

Federal Court Indian Country Determination Order [Ohkay Owingeh Pueblo]

Here are the materials in United States v. Vigil (D.N.M.):

60-us-motion-for-indian-country-determination-1.pdf

71-opposition.pdf

89-reply.pdf

201-dct-order.pdf

Eight Circuit Affirms Conviction of Habitual D.V. Offender

Here is the opinion in United States v. Oka.

Federal Court Declines Jurisdiction over Nisqually Officials under Ex parte Young

Here are the new materials in Bell v. City of Lacey (W.D. Wash.):

53-bell-response-to-tribe-mtd.pdf

58-dct-order.pdf

Prior pleadings, including the tribe’s motion on the pleadings (docket no. 36), are here.