Here are the materials in Citizens for a Better Way v. Dept. of Interior (E.D. Cal.):
158 DCT Order on Motions to Strike
Briefs are here.
Here are the materials in Citizens for a Better Way v. Dept. of Interior (E.D. Cal.):
158 DCT Order on Motions to Strike
Briefs are here.
Here are the materials in the matter captioned by the court Citizens for a Better Way v. Dept. of Interior (E.D. Cal.):
98-1 UAIC Motion for Summary J
99-1 Citizens for a Better Way Motion for Summary J
102-1 Colusa Motion for Summary J
119-1 Enterprise Rancheria Motion for Summary J
120-1 Enterprise Rancheria Motion to Strike Guerrero Dec
121-1 Enterprise Rancheria Motion to Strike Meister Dec
126 UAIC Opposition to Summary J Motion
127 UAIC Opposition to Motion to Strike
128 Citizens for a Better Way Opposition to Summary J Motion
130 Colusa Opposition to Summary J Motion
131 Colusa Opposition to Motion to Strike
135 US Reply re Motion to Strike
136 Enterprise Rancheria Reply re Summary J Motion
137 Enterprise Rancheria Reply re Motion to Strike Guerrero
138 Enterprise Rancheria Reply re Motion to Strike Meister
158 DCT Order Granting Motions to Strike
Materials in the TRO stage of this litigation are here.
Here are the materials in the case captioned Cachil Dehe Band of Wintun Indians of the Colusa Indian Community v. Jewell (E.D. Cal.):
98-1 United Auburn Indian Community Motion for Summary J
99-1 Citizens for a Better Way Motion for Summary J
102-1 Colusa Motion for Summary J
116-1 DOI Motion for Summary J
119-1 Enterprise Rancheria Motion for Summary J
128 Citizens for a Better Way Opposition
135 DOI Reply in Support of Motion to Strike
136 Enterprise Rancheria Reply
Materials in the TRO stage of this litigation are here.
Here are all of the materials now in the case consolidated as Cachil Dehe Band of Wintun Indians of Colusa Indian Community v. Salazar (E.D. Cal.) (we posted preliminary materials here):
Complaint here.
George Forman Affidavit in Spport of TRO
Consolidated Federal Opposition
Complaint here.
Enterprise denying TRO and Mandamus
Patchak is indistinguishable from the present case because no Plaintiff claims an interest in the Proposed Site, meaning that this is not a quiet title action and the QTA’s limitation on suits related to Indian lands does not apply. Patchak squarely addressed the supposedly irreparable harm that Plaintiffs complain of and indicated that federal district courts do have the power to strip the federal government of title to land taken into trust for an Indian tribe under the APA so long as the claimant does not assert an interest in the land. In this case, Plaintiffs only seek to divest the government of its title. They do not assert an interest in the Proposed Site. Plaintiffs have therefore not shown that the mere act of transferring the Proposed Site into trust on February 1, 2013 constitutes irreparable harm, and a TRO is therefore inappropriate.
Yet another Carcieri-based complaint. This is one of many reasons why there won’t be a Carcieri fix.