638 contract – Turtle Talk

This is an action for declaratory and injunctive relief and money damages brought against the Department and the Secretary for Defendants’ violations of the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act, P.L. 93-638, as amended and codified at 25 U.S.C. § 450 et seq. (“ISDEAA”), and regulations promulgated thereunder, and for Defendants’ breach of a contract made under the ISDEAA with the Navajo Nation (“Nation”). The Nation submitted its annual funding agreement (“AFA”) proposal for operations of the Navajo Nation Judicial Branch for the 2014 calendar year (“CY 2014”) to the Bureau of Indian Affairs (“BIA”), an agency of the United States Department of the Interior (“Department”), and the BIA failed to take the statutorily required action to approve or lawfully decline that proposal before the expiration of the 90-day period set forth in the ISDEAA and regulations promulgated thereunder. Therefore, as a matter of law, the CY 2014 AFA must be deemed approved as proposed by the Nation. Pursuant to the Contract Disputes Act, 41 U.S.C. § 7101 et seq. (“CDA”), and sections 110(a) and (d) of the ISDEAA, 25 U.S.C. § 450m-1(a) and (d), the Nation submitted to the BIA a claim seeking relief from the Defendants’ breaches of this deemed-approved contract (No. A12AV00698: the “Contract”) and CY 2014 AFA. The Contract and the CY 2014 AFA are collectively referred to herein as the “CY 2014 Agreement.” The BIA improperly disclaimed the authority to decide the Nation’s CDA claim and thereby denied it. The Nation brings this action seeking declaratory and injunctive relief for Defendants’ violations of the ISDEAA and $15,762,985 in damages for their breach of the CY 2014 Agreement, plus statutory interest from January 3, 2014.

Federal Court Issues Opinion on Scope of White Earth Tribal Police Authority as Federal Officers under FTCA

December 6, 2013Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are the materials in Strei v. Blaine (D. Minn.):

61 MJ Order Granting Motion to Substitute Parties

112 DCT Order Affirming MJ Order

From the DCT Order:

Plaintiff Nathan Strei brings claims against five Defendants in this action, including tort claims against John McArthur and Merlin Deegan in both their official capacities as White Earth tribal police officers and their personal capacities. McArthur and Deegan moved to substitute the United States as the proper defendant for the common law tort claims brought against them, pursuant to the Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”). The Magistrate Judge granted the motion for substitution, and Strei objects. The Court finds that the Magistrate Judge’s determination that McArthur and Deegan were acting within the scope of their employment as federal employees at the time of the events giving rise to Strei’s tort claims was neither erroneous nor contrary to law. Therefore, the Court will affirm the Magistrate Judge’s July 11, 2013 order.

US Must Defend under Federal Tort Claim Act Tribal Police Officer Torts

February 2, 2011Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the opinion in Garcia v. United States (D. Ariz.): Garcia v US

The court rejected the government’s motion for summary judgment, on grounds that the Navajo police officer (who struck a killed the plaintiff while driving under the influence) was working in the scope of work of a 638 contract.

Navajo DPS Employee Claims for Wages under 638 Contract Dismissed

November 19, 2009Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here is the opinion in Boye v. United States (Fed. Cl.) — Boye v United States

An excerpt:

In the above-captioned action, plaintiffs allege that they have not been paid the wages and benefits to which they are entitled pursuant to various self-determination contracts executed by their employer, the Navajo Nation, and the United States Department of the Interior (“Department of the Interior”). They bring their claim as purported third-party beneficiaries. Defendant has moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted pursuant to Rule 12 of the Rules of the United States Court of Federal Claims (“RCFC”). As explained in more detail below, the court grants defendant’s motion.

California Valley Miwok Tribe Loses Claim re AFA Funding Claim

February 25, 2009Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

The BIA refused to renew the California Valley Miwok Tribe’s annual funding agreement under PL 638. The Tribe sued the BIA in the Eastern District of California, which has now dismissed on grounds the Tribe did not exhaust administrative remedies.

calif-miwok-tribe-v-kempthorne

Boney v. Valline — Suit re: Police Liability under Self-Determination Act & FTCA

February 12, 2009February 12, 2009Matthew L.M. Fletcher3 Comments

Here is the opinion in this case — boney-v-valline-dct-order — where the District of Nevada held that a tribal officer who employed deadly force was enforcing tribal law, and so could not be liable under the FTCA or the Self-Determination Act.

Here are the materials:

boney-first-amended-complaint

valline-motion-for-summary-judgment

boney-opposition-to-motion

valline-reply-brief

Like this:

Like this:

Like this:

Like this:

Like this:

Like this:

Like this:

Like this:

Like this:

Like this: