Here are the materials in Grondal v. United States (E.D. Wash.):
275 Colville Motion to Dismiss
279 DCT Order re Supplemental Memorandums
308 DCT Order re Additional Supplemental Briefing
312 Plaintiffs Supplemental Briefing
315 Wapato Heritage Supplemental Briefing
316 Colville Supplemental Briefing
Here are the materials in this update to Grondal v. United States (E.D. Wash.):
An excerpt from the court’s order:
Plaintiffs filed their Complaint on January 21, 2009. Plaintiffs have acquired memberships in and are tenants/occupants of the Mill Bay Resort, a campground located on Lake Chelan in Chelan County, Washington. The Mill Bay Resort exists on real property known as Moses Allotment No.8, also known as Indian Allotment 151-MA-8 (“MA_8”), which consists of approximately 174.26 acres on the shores of Lake Chelan. MA-8 is part of an original allotment authorized under the Moses Agreement of July 7, 1883 as ratified by 23 Stat. 79-80, July 4, 1884 and conveyed to Wapato John through two trust patents. The history of the creation ofMA-8 and other Moses Agreement allotments has been discussed elsewhere, including in this court’s decision on summary judgment (ECF No. 144), in Wapato Heritage, LLC v. U.S., 637 F.3d 1033 (9th Cir. 2011), and in U.S. v. La Chappelle, 81 F. 152 (C.C. 12 Wash. 1897), United States v. Moore, 161 F. 513 (9th Cir. 1908), and Starr v. Long Jim, 227 13 U.S. 613 (1913).
Here is the court order in Grondal v. United States — Grondal DCT Order. Non-Indian plaintiffs sued to prevent federal government from evicting them from Indian trust allotments after expiration/cancellation of federal leases.
Previous orders in a related case (Wapato Heritage LLC v. United States, where the U.S. sued to evict the leaseholders, are here.
Importantly, the district court ordered the United States to show cause as to why it did not enter an appearance on behalf of unrepresented Indian allotment owners in accordance with 25 U.S.C. 175. The court noted:
None of the individually named Defendants who have ownership interests in the real property known as MA-8 appeared. The court notes that the United States has not entered an appearance on behalf of any of the named individual Indian landowners. The court does not know why such an appearance has not been filed since the United States actually granted the Master Lease (as opposed to simply approving it) on behalf of at least certain landowners pursuant to its authority under 25 C.F.R. § 162.601. More importantly, 25 U.S.C. § 175 provides that “[i]n all States and Territories where there are reservations or allotted Indians the United States district attorney shall represent them in all suits at law and in equity,” although the statute is not mandatory. Siniscal v. United States, 208 F.2d 406, 410 (9th Cir.1953) (holding that 25 U.S.C.A. § 175 is not mandatory and that its purpose “is no more than to insure the Indians adequate representation in suits to which they might be parties.”) Unlike this case, in Siniscal, the Indians named were being sued as individuals and “not with reference to any right in which the United States … is in the position of trustee or guardian.” Id. At least one court has recognized where there is a possible conflict of interest between the Indians and the United States, it may be proper for the Indians to be represented by private counsel. State of New Mexico v. Aamodt, 537 F.2d 1102, 23 Fed. R. Serv.2d 810 (10th Cir.1976). The United States has not provided any reason for its failure to enter an appearance on behalf of the un-represented individual Indian landowners to make certain they have adequate representation in this action.
It appears the U.S., like most, has assumed that Section 175 is a virtual dead letter. Maybe not….
Turtle Talk 