sovereign immunity

Federal Court Allows FTCA Claim to Proceed against BIA Cops

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the opinion in Garvais v. United States (E.D. Cal.) — Garvais v USA DCT Order

An excerpt:

The United States has now moved for dismissal arguing that the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the claims of false imprisonment and malicious prosecution because the only factual basis for such claim were the acts of tribal police officers and the tribal prosecutor, who do not qualify as federal employees for purposes of the FTCA. In response to the motion, Plaintiff concedes that any claim based upon the conduct of the tribal officials could not proceed against the United States. Instead, Plaintiff argues that the United States has misconstrued the factual basis of his claim. Plaintiff argues his claims against the United States are based upon the conduct of the investigating BIA officer, Officer Little. There is no dispute that Officer Little qualifies as an “investigative or law enforcement officer[] of the United States” for purposes of 28 U.S.C § 2680(h). Accordingly, the court DENIES the United States’ Motion to Dismiss based upon lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Ninth Circuit Affirms Dismissal of Contract Breach Claim against Pyramid Lake Paiute

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the Ninth Circuit’s unpublished opinion in High Desert Recreation v. Pyramid Lake Pauite Tribe of Indians. An excerpt:

In addition, both Supreme Court precedent and that of this court hold that Indian tribes enjoy sovereign immunity from suits on commercial contracts, whether made on or off a reservation, so long as the subject business activity functions as an arm of the tribe. See Kiowa Tribe v. Mfg. Techs., Inc., 523 U.S. 751, 760 (1998); Allen, 464 F.3d at 1046-47. Since (a) the Tribe is a party to the lease alleged in this case, (b) the lease contemplates the use of marina property owned by the Tribe and is located on the tribal reservation, (c) economic advantages of both the lease and the operation of HDR’s business inure to the Tribe’s benefit, and (d) immunity under the lease protects the Tribe’s treasury from HDR’s suit for over one million dollars in compensatory and punitive damages, the business transacted via the lease is properly deemed an activity of the Tribe for sovereign-immunity purposes.

Federal Court Dismisses Civil Rights Claims against Seminole Tribe

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the opinion in Perry v. Seminole Tribe of Florida (M.D. Fla.) — Perry DCT Order

And the Tribe’s motion to dismiss — Seminole Motion to Dismiss

One of the named defendants is a tribal cop with the coolest name we’ve ever seen for a law enforcement officer — Johnny Nuckles.

MHA Nation Survives Motion to Dismiss Claims for Contract Support Costs from IHS

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the opinion in Three Affiliated Tribes v. United States (D. D.C.) — MHA Nation v. US DCT Order

An excerpt:

laintiff Three Affiliated Tribes of the Fort Berthold Reservation (“Three Tribes”) brings this action against the United States of America, Michael O. Leavitt, Secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Robert G. McSwain, Director of the Indian Health Service (“IHS”), and Charlene M. Red Thunder, Acting Area Director of the IHS, in their official capacities (collectively, “defendants”). The dispute arises from a contract proposal Three Tribes submitted to defendants to provide health services within its reservation pursuant to the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (“ISDEAA”), 25 U.S.C. § 450 et seq. Three Tribes claims that defendants improperly declined two portions of that proposal: (1) inclusion of contract support costs (“CSCs”) in Three Tribes’ annual funding agreement (Count I); and (2) permission to provide health care services to non-Indians pursuant to the Indian Health Care Improvement Act (“IHCIA”), 25 U.S.C. § 1680c(b) (Count II). Now before the Court is defendants’ motion to dismiss. For the reasons explained below, the motion will be denied.

The materials:

IHS Motion to Dismiss

MHA Opposition Brief

IHS Reply Brief

No Jurisdiction in Suit against Feds over Choctaw Membership

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the opinion in Greene v. Skibine (E.D. Cal.) in which the federal court dismissed the complaint sua sponte — Greene v Skibine DCT Order

Greene has made many efforts to gain membership in the Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma.

Idaho Federal Court Refuses to Dismiss Smokeshop Case

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the opinion in Lil’ Brown Smoke Shop v. Wasden (D. Idaho) in which the court rejected a motion to dismiss on Eleventh Amendment and Young absention grounds. An excerpt:

Based on the aforementioned cases and standards, and the arguments of the parties with respect to whether the Act regulates on or off reservation activity, the Court disagrees with Defendants and finds that the issue of the state’s jurisdiction is not conclusive. Here, like in Fort Belnap, Sycuan, and Seneca-Cayuga, the question of whether the state law is enforceable against Plaintiff is a federal question in an area, tribal law, where federal interests predominate. Thus, the Court finds that the State of Idaho’s interest in this litigation is not sufficiently important to warrant Younger abstention in light of the predominant federal question regarding the State of Idaho’s jurisdiction to enforce the Act. Thus, as Defendants have failed to prove all requirements for Younger abstention, the Court will deny Defendants Motion to Dismiss (Docket No. 8 ) with respect to Defendants Wasden and Armstrong.

Lil Brown Smoke Shack DCT Order

Idaho Motion to Dismiss

Smoke Shack Opposition

Idaho Reply Brief

Minnesota Court of Appeals Dismisses Defamation Claim against Tribal Treasurer

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the opinion in Oberloh v. Johnson, a case arising out of the Lower Sioux Indian Community. An excerpt:

In this consolidated appeal arising out of two defamation suits against a tribal treasurer, appellant argues that the district court erred by denying summary judgment with respect to his sovereign immunity and absolute privilege defenses. Because appellant is entitled to invoke sovereign immunity for conduct arising out of his official authority as tribal treasurer, we reverse.

Federal Court Holds that California Waived Eleventh Amendment Immunity from IGRA Good Faith Suits

Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here is the opinion in Big Lagoon Rancheria v. California — DCT Order Denying Cal Motion to Dismiss

The materials:

California Motion for Judgment on Pleadings

Big Lagoon Rancheria Opposition Brief

California Reply Brief

An excerpt:

Continue reading →

Oklahoma Supreme Court Allows Tort Claims in State Courts against Tribal Casinos

Matthew L.M. Fletcher4 Comments

Expanding its decision in Cossey v. Cherokee Nation, the Oklahoma Supreme Court held that state courts have jurisdiction over tort claims against tribal casinos in the companion cases Griffith v. Choctaw Casino of Pocola and Dye v. Choctaw Casino of Pocola. An excerpt from Griffith:

We recently handed down our opinion in Cossey v. Cherokee Nation Enterprises, LLC, 2009 OK 6, — P.3d —-, (mandate issued June 11, 2009), holding that the state district court is a court of competent jurisdiction as that phrase is used in the Cherokee Nation’s tribal gaming compact. Today, in separate opinions in this case and in the related case of Dye v. Choctaw Casino of Pocola, Oklahoma,2009 OK 52, we determine that Oklahoma district courts are courts of competent jurisdiction as that phrase is used in Oklahoma’s statutory model tribal gaming compact and therefore the state courts may exercise jurisdiction over the tort claims against the Choctaw Nation and its casino in Pocola, Oklahoma.

Ninth Circuit Vacates Bivens-Style Action against Tribal Officials

Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here is the opinion in Murgia v. Reed — Murgia v. Reed (9th 2009)

Our earlier post on this case is here (including lower court materials and appellate briefs).

Thanks to T.M.!