Federal Court Transfers Narragansett Consultation Claims against Federal Highway Admin. to D.C. District Court

Here are the materials in Narragansett Indian Tribe v. Hendrickson (D. R.I.):

12 Motion to Dismiss

14 Tribe Motion to Transfer Venue

16 US Opposition to 14

17 Reply in Support of 14

18 Tribe Opposition to 12

20 Reply in Support of 12

21 Tribe Motion for Reconsideration

23 DCt Order Granting 14 on Reconsideration

Complaint here.

Narragansett NHPA Consultation Suit

Here is the complaint Narragansett Indian Tribe v. Federal Highway Administration (D.R.I.):


An excerpt:

The Tribe brings this action to challenge the termination of a programmatic agreement(“PA”) entered into pursuant to the regulations of the National Historic Preservation Act (“NHPA”). The termination of the PA occurred after substantial construction had taken place on the project for which the PA was meant to address and resolve the adverse effects of the project on historic properties to the signatories’ satisfaction. The termination of the PA after substantial work had been performed on the project, and the subsequent final decision of the Federal Highway Association (“FHWA”) was arbitrary and capricious.

First Circuit Rejects Narragansett Tribe’s Claims against Rhode Island DOT

Here is the opinion in Narragansett Indian Tribe v. Rhode Island Dept. of Transportation.






Lower court materials here.

Narragansett Effort to Stop Providence Bridge Project Fails

Here are the materials in Narragansett Indian Tribe v. Rhode Island Department of Transportation (D.R.I.):

18-1 Federal Motion to Dismiss

19-1 State Motion to Dismiss

23-1 Tribe Response

26-1 State Reply

27-1 Federal Reply

28 DCT Order

First Circuit Rejects Narragansett Interlocutory Appeal in Sovereign Immunity Matter (Waited Too Long to Appeal Denial of Motion for Reconsideration)

Here is the opinion in Luckerman v. Narragansett Indian Tribe:

CA1 Opinion

An excerpt:

Surveying the foregoing, a prior duty panel of this court cleared the underbrush by  dismissing as untimely any appeal from the denial of the Motion to Dismiss. Luckerman v. Narragansett Indian Tribe, No. 14-1106, Order at 1 (1st Cir. Aug. 29, 2014). That decision obviates the need to decide whether we would have had jurisdiction over an interlocutory appeal from the Motion to Dismiss. We do need to decide, though, whether we have appellate jurisdiction under the collateral order doctrine to review the only order before us: the denial of the untimely Rule 59(e) Motion. For the reasons described below, we conclude that the denial of the Tribe’s untimely Rule 59(e) Motion does not qualify as a collateral order that we may review prior to the end of the litigation in the district court.

Briefs here.

First Circuit Briefs in Luckerman v. Narragansett Tribe


Narrangansett Brief

Luckerman Brief

Narragansett Reply

Lower court materials here.

Additional Update in Luckerman v. Narragansett

Here are additional materials in Luckerman v. Narragansett Indian Tribe (D. R.I.):

29 Motion to Correct the Record

33-1 Response

34 DCT Order on Amending the Record

Meanwhile, the tribe has appealed the sovereign immunity issue here to the First Circuit.

Prior posts on this case are here and here.

Federal Court Rejects Narragansett Effort to Dismiss Attorney Fees Suit on Immunity Grounds

Here are the updated materials in Luckerman v. Narragansett Indian Tribe (D. R.I.):

18-1 Narragansett Motion for Reconsideration

19-1 Luckerman Response

20 Narragansett Reply

22 DCT Order Denying Reconsideration

An excerpt:

On August 29, 2013, this Court denied Defendant Narragansett Indian Tribe’s (“Tribe”) motion to dismiss, but stayed adjudication of the case pending tribal exhaustion.1 Now, the Tribe has filed a motion for reconsideration of that decision (ECF No. 18), re-emphasizing the Tribe’s position that its tribal sovereign immunity bars the instant lawsuit, and asking again that the Court dismiss the claims brought by Plaintiff Douglas J. Luckerman. For the reasons set forth below, Defendant’s motion for reconsideration is DENIED.

Earlier, the federal court remanded the case to tribal court for exhaustion purposes, post here. Other lower court materials here and here.