Court of Federal Claims – Page 16

Samish Must Wait to Appeal Claim against United States

February 6, 2009Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are the materials in this Rule 54(b) motion:

samish-indian-nation-dct-order [an excerpt: Before the court is plaintiff’s motion for entry of judgment pursuant to Rule 54(b) of the Rules of the United States Court of Federal Claims (“RCFC”). Plaintiff requests that the court enter a final judgment on its May 27, 2008 Opinion and Order, which dismissed plaintiff’s first claim for relief with respect to the Tribal Priority Allocation (“TPA”) system and the Indian Health Service (“IHS”) funding process. Defendant opposes plaintiff’s motion. For the reasons set forth below, the court denies plaintiff’s motion.]

samish-nation-rule-54b-motion

us-response-to-rule-54b-motion

samish-reply

Here are the materials from the earlier portion of the case.

Nez Perce Tribe v. United States — Court of Federal Claims

September 4, 2008Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the opinion. An excerpt:

For the reasons stated, the court holds that when a complaint is filed in the Court of Federal Claims prior to the filing of an overlapping complaint in another court on the same day, 28 U.S.C. § 1500 does not divest this court of jurisdiction over that first-filed complaint. The Nez Perce Tribe has proved by a preponderance of the evidence that its Court of Federal Claims complaint was filed on December 28, 2006, earlier than its complaint filed the same day in district court. In sum, Nez Perce’s complaint in the district court was not “pending” when the Tribe filed its complaint in this court. Because the Tucker Act and Indian Tucker Act provide a basis for jurisdiction over Nez Perce’s complaint in this court, and because that jurisdiction is not displaced by operation of 28 U.S.C. § 1500, the court is obliged to proceed to consider the merits of this case.

Samish Indian Tribe v US — DCT Dismisses for Lack of Jurisdiction

May 31, 2008Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

This case may harbor some bad news for Michigan tribes who had been administratively terminated and still hoping to be able to recover for the years that the federal government illegally failed to provide services.

samish-second-amended-complaint

us-motion-to-dismiss-samish-complaint

samish-report-on-why-discovery-should-be-permitted

us-supplement-brief-re-motion-to-dismiss

samish-response-to-us-supplemental-brief

us-reply-brief

dct-opinion-in-samish-v-us

Western Shoshone Suit Against the US

November 24, 2007Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

The Western Shoshone National Council is attempting to reopen the land claims case resulting in United States v. Dann under Rule 60(b). The Court of Federal Claims dismissed the action (here is the opinion) and now it is before the Federal Circuit. Here are the briefs, including the parallel briefs of the groups known in the briefs as the South Fork Band: