District of Montana

FTCA/Civil Rights Suit against BIA Officers Enforcing N. Cheyenne Tribal Bench Warrant against Non-Indian Dismissed

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are the materials in the case captioned In re Roberts Litigation (D. Mont.):

33 Federal Motion for Summary J

44 Opposition

45 Federal Reply

54 DCT Order Granting Federal Motion for Summary J

An excerpt:

In order for Roberts’ claim under Bivens to survive, the law must have been sufficiently clear to place a reasonable officer on notice that the Tribal Court acted in complete absence of jurisdiction in issuing the warrants, and that in carrying out the Tribal Court mandate to serve the warrants, reasonable officers would have known they were [8]  engaging in an unlawful act, Existing law permits no such conclusions, notwithstanding Roberts’ contention that the law was clearly established that the Tribal Court lacked criminal jurisdiction over non-Indians under the authority of Oliphant v. Suquamish Indian Tribe, 435 U.S. 191, 98 S. Ct. 1011, 55 L. Ed. 2d 209 (1978) and that the officers had personal knowledge that Roberts was a non-Indian.

Roberts’ argument fails to take into account the Northern Cheyenne Tribal Court’s claim of capacity to exercise jurisdiction over non-Indians by consent. It is not necessary, however, for this Court to decide the question of whether a tribal court may exercise such jurisdiction. Rather, the issue is whether the law was so clearly established at the time of Roberts’ arrests that a reasonable officer would have known that the tribal court was wholly without jurisdiction and that he was engaging in a null and void act. Existing law is not sufficiently clear to warrant that conclusion. The jurisdictional issue remains.

The officers were presented with facially valid warrants, they were charged with the responsibility to execute the warrants, and they had a reasonable basis to believe in the validity of the warrants and in the lawfulness of their actions in executing the warrants. They are entitled to qualified immunity for the personal capacity claims brought against them under the Bivens doctrine.

Suit for Injunctive Relief against Blackfeet Elected Officials over Utility MOA Dispute May Proceed

Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here are the materials in Town of Browning v. Sharp (D. Mont.):

71 12b1 Motion to Dismiss

73 12b6 Motion to Dismiss

75 12b7 Motion to Dismiss

95 Response to 12b1 Motion

96 response to 12b6 Motion

97 Response to 12b7 Motion

115 Reply in Support of 12b7 Motion

123 DCT Order

140 Magistrate Report

144 Objection to Magistrate Report

148 DCT Order

An excerpt:

Defendants and Plaintiff have not objected to Judge Johnston’s Findings and Recommendations on any other grounds. The Court finds no clear error in Judge Johnston’s Findings and Recommendations, and adopts them in full. A plaitiff may seek only prospective, injunctive relief under the doctrine of Ex Parte Young. Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. Vaughn, 509 F.3d 1092 (9th Cir.2007). Plaintiff seeks compensatory damages, exemplary damages, treble damages, and costs and attorney fees for counts 2–5. Plaintiff has failed to state a claim for which relief can be granted. Dismissal of counts 2–5 is appropriate pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Plaintiff seeks prospective, injunctive relief in count 1. Defendants have failed to demonstrate that Plaintiff has not stated a claim for which relief can be granted in count 1.

Utility Company Sues to Be Excused from Exhausting Tribal Remedies at Blackfeet

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the complaint in Glacier Electric Coop. Inc. v. Gervais (D. Mont.):

1 Complaint

1-2 Tribal Court Complaint

From the complaint:

The Tribal Court plainly lacks jurisdiction over the Lawsuit because the Tribal Court, and Blackfeet Tribe, lack subject matter and personal jurisdiction over Plaintiffs.

From the tribal court complaint:

A public utility may not use its privileged position, in conjunction with the demand, which it has created, as a weapon to control rates by threatening to discontinue that part of its service, if it does not receive the rate demanded.

Ninth Circuit Materials in Crow Tribal Housing Authority v. HUD

Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here are the briefs:

HUD Opening Brief

Crow Answer Brief

HUD Reply

Oral argument audio and video.

Lower court materials here.

Chippewa Cree Tribe Suit to Recover Arbitration Award from Tribally-Owned Payday Lending Management Company

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the complaint in Chippewa Cree Tribe of the Rocky Boy Reservation of Montana v. Encore Services LLC (D. Mont.):

1 Complaint + Exhibits

News coverage, “Tribal members funneled cash from lending company,” here. H/T pechanga.

Materials in Effort to Partition Indian Allotment

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are the materials so far in Haeker v. United States Government (D. Mont.):

21 US Motion to Dismiss

22 Response

23 US Reply

24 MJ R&R

An excerpt:

Plaintiff Kurt Haeker (“Haeker”) seeks to partition his undivided fee interest in land within Indian Allotment 3316 on the Crow Indian Reservation. See Second Amend. Cmplt (ECF 19). The United States holds the legal title to the remaining undivided legal interest in trust for the benefit of several individual Indian allottees.
Pending is the United States’ motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. ECF 20. Having considered the parties’ arguments and submissions, the Court makes the following findings and recommends that the motion be granted.

Federal Courts Dismiss Federal Habitual Domestic Violence Offender Indictments Due to Uncounseled Tribal Court Convictions

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are the materials in United States v. Kirkaldie (D. Mont.):

21 Motion to Dismiss

24 US Response

39 DCT Order

And in United States v. Stewart (D. Mont.):

20 Stewart Motion to Dismiss + Tribal Court Docs

21 US Response

28 DCT Order

 

 

Montana School District to Redraw District Lines after Losing Voting Rights Act Case to Native Voters

Matthew L.M. Fletcher2 Comments

Here are the materials in Jackson v. Wolf Point School District (D. Mont.) (from the ALCU site):

Final Order
Judge Strong’s Recommendations
Consent Decree
Complaint
Press Release

From the ACLU site:

In January 2014, Wolf Point School District officials conceded voting districts challenged in August 2013 violate the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. A settlement with the district calls for electing one board member from each of five voting districts to serve on the high school and elementary school boards and one member elected at-large district-wide to serve only on the high school board. Each of the new single-member districts will have populations that vary no more than 1.54 percent. This is a significant change from the existing system in which members of the majority white voting district have been electing one board member for every 143 residents and those in the majority Native American district have been electing one board member for every 841 residents. The settlement will be implemented over two years. The ACLU of Montana and the ACLU National Voting Rights Project sued the Wolf Point High School District in U.S. District Court in 2013 on behalf of seven Native American voters whose right to equal representation was being violated by these malapportioned school district voting districts that give some voters greater representation on the school board. The old districts violated the U.S. Voting Rights Act because they deprived Native Americans of the equal right to participate in the political process and elect representatives of their choice.

News coverage here.

Ninth Circuit Dismisses Wandering Medicine Voting Rights Appeal as Moot

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the unpublished order:

Wandering Medicine Mem Dispo

An excerpt:

Because we conclude that the scope of the preliminary injunction only included the 2012 election, this court can no longer provide plaintiffs with the relief requested—requiring defendants to open satellite offices in time for that election. Although plaintiffs’ complaint requested “preliminary and permanent injunctive relief . . . for the 2012 primary election and . . . for all future elections,” plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction included no such language, and the evidence presented to the district court focused almost exclusively on the 2012 election. As that election has passed, there is no longer any relief that this court can provide with respect to that election.

Briefs and other materials here.

Federal Court Dismisses Pro Se Effort to Return “Peace Flag”

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are the materials in Gopher v. Cascade County (D. Mont.):

Complaint

DCT Order Dismissing Complaint

An excerpt:

Ms. Gopher seeks the return of a 13-star peace flag bundle and its contents. She contends that Cascade County has exercised illegal control over the Gopher family’s artifacts. She seeks an immediate injunction barring the effect of a November 12, 2012 state court order, the return of her family’s property which was subject to a probate action which commenced in Cascade County on July 22, 2010, and a stay of all state court proceedings.

The Montana Supreme Court ruled on this matter previously.