sovereign immunity – Page 62

Matt seeks documents in the possession of the Fort Belknap Community Council. (Doc. 26-1 at 2.) In order to satisfy Matt’s request, Council would be required to take affirmative action to produce tribal documents. (Doc. 37 at 3.) If the Court granted Matt’s request the judgment would “interfere with public administration” of the tribe and would “compel [the sovereign] to act.” Maxwell, 708 F.3d at 1087-90. The recovery sought in this case would operate against the tribe. Matt should not be allowed to “circumvent tribal immunity” by addressing the Subpoena Duces Tecum to Mark Azure instead of to the tribe.

54 Motion to Compel

55 DCT Order

An excerpt:

The Council entered into an ISDEAA contract for the maintenance of the roads on Matt’s property. The Council and its tribal members should be deemed part of the BIA and subject to the FTCA. The Council and its tribal members should be subject to discovery related to the construction and maintenance of the roads covered by the ISDEAA contract.

Federal Court Quashes Subpoena on Tribal Sovereign Immunity Grounds

February 5, 2016February 5, 2016Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are the materials in Dillon v. BMO Harris Bank (N.D. Okla.):

3 Otoe-Missouria Tribe of Indians Motion to Quash

7 Response

9 Reply

15 DCT Order

Briefs in Star Tickets v. Chumash Casino Resort

February 2, 2016Sarah M Donnelly

Materials and documents for the leave to appeal in Michigan’s Supreme Court:

Defendant/Appellant’s Application for Leave to Appeal

Plaintiff-Appellee’s Brief in Opposition to Application for Leave to Appeal

Defendant/Appellant’s Brief In Reply To Opposition

Amicus brief in support of petition from State Bar’s American Indian Law Section

Our motion for leave to file and our lodged amicus brief in support of petition

South Dakota Dismisses Inmate Suit Against Rosebud Sioux Prison Officials

January 26, 2016January 26, 2016Sarah M Donnelly

Opinion and Order Granting Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis and Dismissing Complaint in the matter of Whiting v. Eagle Bear (Jan. 22 2016).

William Whiting claimed constitutional violations, but the district court found it did not have jurisdiction to hear the case and defendants are immune. Whiting must use administrative remedies.

Arizona Court of Appeals Affirms Immunity of Tribal Police for Off-Reservation Actions

January 22, 2016Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the opinion in Brown v. Officer K. Robertson #Y234 (Ariz. Ct. App.):

CV 14-0812

Title Action against Muscogee (Creek) Nation Trust Lands Dismissed

January 12, 2016Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are the materials in Alabama-Quassarte Tribal Town v. United States (E.D. Okla.):

182 Muscogee Creek Motion to Dismiss

Tenth Circuit Affirms Dismissal of Sand Creek Massacre Trust Claims

December 23, 2015Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the opinion in Flute v. United States.

An excerpt:

This case arises out of an ignominious event in the history of this Nation. In 1864, the United States Army conducted an unprovoked attack on a group of unarmed Indians, who had relocated to an area next to the Sand Creek River in the Territory of Colorado at the direction and under the protection of the Territorial Governor. When what has become known as the Sand Creek Massacre was over, most of the Indians were dead, including many women and children. After an investigation, the United States publicly acknowledged its role in the tragedy and agreed to pay reparations to certain survivors of the massacre. But those reparations were never paid.

Plaintiffs are descendants of the victims of the 1864 Sand Creek Massacre and bring this action for an accounting of the amounts they allege the U.S. government holds in trust for payment of reparations to their ancestors. Because the United States has not waived its sovereign immunity, we affirm the district court’s dismissal of such for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Briefs here.