Nooksack Kelly Faction Files Notice of Appeal in Rabang v. Kelly; IHS Reassumes Services “Effective Immediately”

Plaintiff Navajo Nation (“Nation”) seeks relief for Defendants’ violations of the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act, as amended, 25 U.S.C. § 5301 et seq. (“ISDEAA”), and regulations promulgated thereunder, and for Defendants’ breach of a self-determination contract made under the ISDEAA. Under the ISDEAA and governing regulations, Defendants may not decline an Indian tribe’s renewal proposal for a self-determination contract, or contract funding, if it is substantially the same as the prior contract. The Nation submitted a renewal proposal to the Department of the Interior (“Department”) for their contract covering operations of the Navajo Nation Judicial Branch that proposed funding in the amount of $17,055,477 for calendar year (“CY”) 2017. This was the same amount that the Nation sought for CY 2016 and was essentially the same amount that the Nation had previously sought for CY 2014 and CY 2015 ($17,055,517) and which had been approved by operation of law because of Defendants’ failure to decline the Nation’sCY 2014 funding proposal within the 90-day review period established by law. Nonetheless, Defendants partially declined the Nation’s renewal proposal for all funding in excess of $1,429,177.00 for CY 2017. Because Defendants’ action violates the ISDEAA and applicable regulations, the Nation is entitled to declaratory and injunctive relief and damages.

Federal Court Dismisses Nooksack v. Zinke; Plaintiff Lacks Standing as “Nooksack Tribe”

May 11, 2017Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are the materials in Nooksack Indian Tribe v. Zinke (W.D. Wash.):

19 – Nooksack Tribe’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction

26 – Federal Defendants’ Opposition to Preliminary Injunction Motion and Cross-Motion to Dismiss

29 – Nooksack Tribe’s Reply in Support of Motion for Preliminary Injunction

36 – Nooksack Tribe’s Response in Opposition to Federal Defendants’ Cross-Motion to Dismiss or for Summary Judgment

39 – Secretary’s Reply re Motion to Dismiss

43 – Order Granting Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss

44 – Judgment

Federal Court Dismisses FTCA Claim Arising from Hot Oil Burn at Indian School

May 11, 2017May 11, 2017Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are the materials in Lightning Fire v. United States (D.S.D.):

Update on Bears Ears Listening Sessions: In Short, It’s Going As Expected

May 10, 2017Matthew L.M. Fletcher2 Comments

Here:

Interior Secretary Orders Protester To ‘Be Nice’ During Visit To Bears Ears:

Ryan Zinke shook his finger in the face of a woman urging him to meet with tribal leaders.

IBIA Stays Nooksack IHS Appeal Pending Federal Court Litigation; IHS Withholds $89K From Tribe Pending Appeal

May 8, 2017Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are the materials in Nooksack Indian Tribe v. Director, Portland Area, Indian Health Service (IBIA):

3-28-17 Nooksack v. IHS (IBIA) Motion of 271 Nooksack Members to Intervene

4-3-17 Nooksack v. IHS (IBIA) IHS Statement of Non-Opposition to Motion of 271 Nooksack Members to Intervene

4-19-17 Nooksack v. IHS (IBIA) Nooksack’s Response in Opposition to Motion to Intervene

4-28-17 Nooksack v. IHS (IBIA) Joint Stay of Proceedings

4-28-17 Nooksack v. IHS (IBIA) Order

Zinke Calls to Reopen IRA, Looking for “Off Ramp” and to (apparently?) Terminate the Trust Relationship by Privatizing Tribes

May 2, 2017Matthew L.M. Fletcher4 Comments

Here:

We need a discussion on that. As I look at the 1934 Indian Reorganization Act, I think it’s time for a dialogue. “What are we going to be 100 years from now? Is there an off-ramp? If tribes would have a choice of leaving Indian trust lands and becoming a corporation, tribes would take it and quite frankly at BIA (the Bureau of Indian Affairs), I’m not sure in many ways we’re value- added.

Court of Federal Claims Dismisses Pro Se Treaty Rights Claim

April 27, 2017Matthew L.M. Fletcher

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.

Turtle Talk

trust relationship