Court of Federal Claims Dismisses Pro Se Treaty Rights Claim

Here are the available materials in Walking Eagle v. United States (Fed. Cl.):

1 Complaint

14 DCT Order

The remaining pleadings are sealed.

An excerpt from the opinion:

Plaintiff, Clarence Walking Eagle, Jr., is a Sioux Native American in the Fort Peck Sioux Tribe and resides on Fort Peck in Brockton, Montana. Appearing pro se, he filed his complaint on August 8, 2016, seeking $10,000,000.00 in compensatory damages under various treaties and statutes due to, among other alleged wrongs, “being unlawfully alienated from the exclusive use and benefit of [his] trust land and exposed to foreign jurisdiction without consent for the benefit of non-Indian concerns for almost ninety-nine years.” Pl.’s Compl. ¶ 48. Plaintiff also seeks $10,000,000.00 in punitive damages and various forms of equitable relief, such as an order restraining state law enforcement agencies from exercising jurisdiction within the boundaries of Fort Peck.
On December 5, 2016, defendant filed a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, arguing that plaintiff’s claims accrued outside this court’s six-year statute of limitations and that plaintiff is precluded from bringing these claims due to his participation in the Cobell class-action settlement, which is described in more detail below. See Cobell v. Salazar, No. 96-1285(TFH), 2011 WL 10676927 (D.D.C. July 27, 2011); Def.’s Mot. to Dismiss (“Def.’s Mot.”) Ex. 4 (copy of the Cobell settlement agreement). We agree and deem oral argument on this motion unnecessary. Because we find that plaintiff’s claims accrued outside of this court’s six-year statute of limitations and that, in any event, plaintiff is precluded from bringing these claims due to the Cobell settlement agreement, we grant defendant’s motion to dismiss.

Ninth Circuit Materials in United States v. King Mountain Tobacco Co. (Nos. 14-36055, 16-35607)

Here:

Opening Brief

Appellee Brief

Reply Brief

Lower court materials here.

Michael Blumm on the Treaty Right to a Habitat

Michael Blumm has published “Indian Treaty Fishing Rights and the Environment: Affirming the Right to Habitat Protection and Restoration” in the Washington Law Review.

Washington COA Rejects Snoqualmoo Indian Treaty Rights to Defense to Elk Harvest

Here is the opinion in State v. Snyder:

Opinion

An excerpt:

In 1974, the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington, as affirmed by the United States Supreme Court, took continuing jurisdiction over fishing disputes arising from the Treaty of Point Elliot and other treaties. Since then, the federal courts have not only interpreted these treaties but continue to supervise their application. The supreme court has held that the lower federal court rulings in this matter bind the State, state courts, private individuals like the Snyders, and organizations like the Snoqualmoo Tribe. We see no reason why we should not follow this guidance in the case of hunting rights.

Briefs:

British Columbia Court Affirms Aboriginal Hunting and Fishing Rights in Favor of Sinixt People (Suit Involved Colville Tribal Member)

Here is the opinion in R. v. Desautel:

R v Desautel

Skokomish Suit against Suquamish Council Members Dismissed in Federal Court

Here are the materials in Skokomish Indian Tribe v. Forsman (W.D. Wash.):

15 Motion to Dismiss

19 Response

20-2 Sklallam Amicus Brief

22 Reply

34 DCT Order

DAPL Appeal Pleadings

Here are the briefs in Standing Rock Sioux Tribe v. United States Army Corps of Engineers:

2017 03 15 Em Mtn for Injunction

2017 03 17 ACOE Resp in Opp

2017 03 17 CRST Reply

2017 03 17 DAPL Resp in Opp Exhibits

2017 03 17 DAPL Resp in Opp

2017 03 18 Order Denying Injunction

Washington SCT Rules 7-2 in Favor of Treaty Right to Travel

Here is the opinion in Cougar Den Inc. v. Washington State Dept. of Licensing.

Briefs:

92289-6 Appellant’s Opening Brief

92289-6 Appellant’s Reply

92289-6 Appellant’s Response to Amicus Brief

92289-6 Respondent’s Brief

92289-6 Yakama Nation Amicus Brief

Minnesota COA Remands Off-Rez Treaty Rights Case to State District Court

Here are the materials in State of Minnesota v. Northrup:

Order – Certifying Question

Statement – Case – Appellant

Order – Jurisdiction Questioned

Memorandum – Informal – Respondent

Memorandum – Informal – Appellant

Order – Dismiss – Not Stipulated, Entire Case

News coverage here.

Map of Proposed Pipelines in Tribal Homelands by Aaron Carapella

Link: Aaron Carapella’s website with larger PDF version.