tribal courts – Page 52

Tenth Circuit Orders Exhaustion of Tribal Remedies over Trespass Claim Involving Nonmember Police Officers

July 11, 2017July 12, 2017Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here is the opinion in Norton v. Ute Indian Tribe.

An excerpt:

We conclude that the district court erred in excusing the officers from exhaustion of tribal remedies with respect to the Tribe’s trespass claim, which alleges that the officers asserted superior authority over tribal lands and barred a tribal official from accessing the scene of the Murray shooting. Although we do not decide today whether the Tribal Court possesses jurisdiction over that claim, exhaustion is required unless tribal court jurisdiction is “automatically foreclosed.” Nat’l Farmers Union Ins. Cos. v. Crow Tribe of Indians, 471 U.S. 845, 855 (1985). The officers have not made this showing for the trespass claim because that claim at least arguably implicates the Tribe’s core sovereign rights to exclude and to self-govern. We further conclude that this claim is not barred by Hicks, which excused exhaustion based on a state’s overriding interest in investigating off-reservation offenses. Such an interest is not at play in this case. Murray was not suspected of committing any off-reservation violation, and the officers were not cross-deputized to enforce state law on the Reservation. However, we agree with the district court that the remaining Tribal Court claims are not subject to tribal jurisdiction and thus exhaustion was unnecessary.

Briefs:

Opening Brief

Utah Municipalities Answer Brief

Answer Brief

Reply Brief

Lower court materials in Norton v. Ute Indian Tribe (D. Utah):

23 Motion to Dismiss

32 Motion for Preliminary Injunction

33 Utah Municipalities Response to 23

34 State Response to 23

36 Norton Response to 23

37 Reply in Support of 23

38 Opposition to 32

39 Tribal Court Response to 32

40 Reply in Support of 32

57 DCT Order

Federal Court Transfers Kewa Pueblo Prisoner’s ICRA Habeas Matter to District of Colorado

July 7, 2017Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are the materials in Cheykaychi v. Geisen (D.N.M.):

1 Habeas Petition

4 DCT Order to Show Cause

9 Response to 4

10 DCT Order Tranferring Case to D. Colo.

Federal Court Dismisses Casino Patron Effort to Overrule Tribal Tort Claims Act Interpretation

July 7, 2017Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are the materials in Wilson v. Umpqua Indian Development Corporation (D. Or.):

1 Complaint

1-7 Tribal Court Decision

15 Motion to Dismiss

Kansas Appellate Court Orders Resentencing of Kickapoo Tribal Member

July 5, 2017July 5, 2017Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the opinion in State v. Horselooking:

State v Horselooking

An excerpt:

Alvin P. Horselooking, Jr., appeals his sentence following his convictions of aggravated battery and driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI). The district court assigned Horselooking a criminal history score of B based in part on his Kickapoo Nation tribal conviction of residential burglary, which the district court scored as a person felony for criminal history purposes. However, the Kickapoo Nation Tribal Code does not designate burglary as being either a felony or a misdemeanor offense. As his sole issue on appeal, Horselooking claims the district court erred when it scored his prior Kickapoo tribal conviction as a felony for criminal history purposes. Because we agree with Horselooking’s claim, we vacate his sentence and remand for the district court to resentence Horselooking using the correct criminal history score.

Federal Court Allows Discovery of Nooksack Tribal Court Judge

June 30, 2017Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are the materials from Rabang v. Kelly (W.D. Wash.):

75 Plaintiffs’ Motion to Deny or Continue Defendant Dodge’s Motion for Summary Judgment

82 Defendant Chief Judge Raymond Dodge’s Opposition to Rule 56(D) Motion

84 Plaintiffs’ Reply in Support of Motion to Deny or Continue Dodge’s Motion for Summary Judgment

85 Order Granting Plaintiffs’ Motion to Continue

ICRA Habeas Petition Dismissed for Failure to Exhaust Tribal Remedies

June 29, 2017Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here are the materials in Adams v. Elwell (D.N.M.):

1 Habeas Petition

8 DCT Order

Split Ninth Circuit Panel Finds Colorable Navajo Labor Commission Jurisdiction over Window Rock School District

June 28, 2017Matthew L.M. Fletcher2 Comments

Here is the opinion in Window Rock School District v. Nez.

An excerpt from the court’s syllabus:

The panel held that it was “colorable or plausible” that the tribal adjudicative forum, the Navajo Nation Labor Commission, had jurisdiction because the claims arose from conduct on tribal land over which the Navajo Nation had the right to exclude nonmembers, and the claims implicated no state criminal law enforcement interests. Well-established exhaustion principles therefore required that the tribal forum have the first opportunity to evaluate its own jurisdiction, including the nature of the state and tribal interests involved.

Briefs and lower court materials here.

Washington COA Dismisses Two Challenges to Swinomish Civil Forfeiture under Rule 19

June 27, 2017June 27, 2017Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the unpublished opinion in Washington v. Director of the Dept. of Licensing.

An excerpt:

After losing her vehicle to the Swinomish Tribe in civil forfeiture, Washington filed this suit against the Department of Licensing and unnamed Swinomish police officers. The trial court dismissed the case under CR 19 for failure to join an indispensable party: the Tribe. We affirm.

Here are the briefs:

And here is the unpublished opinion in Scott v. Doe.

Briefs:

Federal Court Affirms Some 638 Contract Denials re: Northern Arapaho Tribe, Remands Others

June 26, 2017June 26, 2017Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are the materials in Northern Arapaho Tribe v. Lacounte (D. Mont.):

131 NAT Motion for Summary Judgment

An excerpt:

The Court affirms the BIA’s declinations of NAT’s second and third judicial services proposals, wildlife resources management proposal, and water resources management proposal. The Court reverses the BIA’s declination of NAT’s youth court proposal, to the extent that the declination improperly relied upon post-hoc justifications, and NAT’s first judicial services proposal. We remand these proposals to the BIA for reconsideration.

Prior posts here.