District of Utah – Page 7

San Juan County Ordered To Create New School Board Election Districts by January 28th, 2016

December 18, 2015December 23, 2015Sarah M Donnelly

Link to press release from Navajo Nation DOJ here.

Previous posts about the case here.

Excerpt:

Leonard Gorman, Executive Director of the Navajo Nation Human Rights Commission, attended the status conference and said, “We are very pleased with how the hearing went yesterday. It was great that Judge Shelby agreed that Navajo voters in San Juan County should not have to tolerate violations of their constitutional rights through another election cycle. We are especially grateful to Judge Shelby for establishing a firm deadline for fixing the County’s illegal School Board election districts.”

Federal Court Grants Federal Officer Summary Judgment in Excessive Force Suit brought by Deceased Alleged Indian Graverobber

December 14, 2015Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are the materials in Estate of Redd v. Love (D. Utah):

93 Love Motion for Summary J

102 Estate Opposition

115 Reply

120 DCT Order

An excerpt:

This case arises out of Dr. James D. Redd’s tragic suicide the day after federal agents arrested him and his wife for trafficking in stolen Native American artifacts, theft of government property, and theft of tribal property. Dr. Redd’s Estate brought this Bivens action against Bureau of Land Management Agent Daniel Love. The Estate claims Agent Love violated Dr. Redd’s Fourth Amendment right to be free from the use of excessive force when Agent Love sent over fifty-three federal agents, many of whom were heavily armed and wearing bulletproof vests, to raid and search Dr. Redd’s home.

Agent Love moves for summary judgment, arguing qualified immunity shields him from the Estate’s claim. After careful consideration, the court grants Agent Love’s motion.

The estate previously survived a federal summary judgment motion, and those materials are here.

Navajo Prevails in Voting Rights Case

December 10, 2015Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here are the materials in Navajo Nation v. San Juan County (D. Utah):

173 Navajo Motion for Summary J – 4th Claim

182 Navajo Motion for Summary J – 2d Claim

183 Massey Expert Report

184 Ely Expert Report

185 Deyhle Expert Report

188 Engstrom Expert Report

189 Tom-Orme Expert Report

198 San Juan County Opposition

221 San Juan County Opposition to 173

280 DCT Order

Prior posts here, here, here, and here.

Tenth Circuit Sides with Ute Indian Tribe in Dispute with State and Counties over Indian Country Criminal Jurisdiction

June 16, 2015June 16, 2015Matthew L.M. Fletcher4 Comments

Here is the opinion in Ute Indian Tribe v. State of Utah:

14-4028

An excerpt:

In our layered system of trial and appellate courts everyone’s assured at least two chances to air a grievance. Add to this the possibility that a lawsuit might bounce back to the trial court on remand or even rebound its way to appeal yet again — or the possibility that an issue might win interlocutory review — and the opportunities to press a complaint grow abundantly. No doubt our complex and consuming litigation wringer has assumed the shape it has so courts might squeeze as much truth as possible out of the parties’ competing narratives. But sooner or later every case must come to an end. After all, that’s why people bring their disputes to court in the first place: because the legal system promises to resolve their differences without resort to violence and supply “peace and repose” at the end of it all. S. Pac. R.R. Co. v. United States, 168 U.S. 1, 49 (1897). For a legal system to meet this promise, of course, both sides must accept — or, if need be, they must be made to respect — the judgments it generates. Most people know and readily assent to all this. So it’s pretty surprising when a State and several of its counties need a reminder. But that’s what this appeal is all about.

And:

A system of law that places any value on finality — as any system of law worth its salt must — cannot allow intransigent litigants to challenge settled decisions year after year, decade after decade, until they wear everyone else out. Even — or perhaps especially — when those intransigent litigants turn out to be public officials, for surely those charged with enforcing the law should know this much already. Though we are mindful of the importance of comity and cooperative federalism and keenly sensitive to our duty to provide appropriate respect for and deference to state proceedings, we are equally aware of our obligation to defend the law’s promise of finality. And the case for finality here is overwhelming. The defendants may fervently believe that Ute V drew the wrong boundaries, but that case was resolved nearly twenty years ago, the Supreme Court declined to disturb its judgment, and the time has long since come for the parties to accept it.

Briefs here.

Federal Court Denies San Juan County’s Motion to Dismiss Navajo Nation’s Voting Rights Case

March 17, 2015Matthew L.M. Fletcher3 Comments

Here are the materials in Navajo Nation v. San Juan County (D. Utah):

98 San Juan County Motion to Dismiss

99 Navajo Nation Motion for Partial Summary J — Fourth Claim

100 Navajo Nation Motion for Partial Summary J — Second and Third Claims

101 Navajo Nation Opposition to 98

104 San Juan County 56d Motion

105 San Juan County Reply re 98

166 Memorandum Decision and Order

An excerpt:

Having established subject-matter jurisdiction and the joinder of all necessary parties, the court finds that Navajo Nation has provided “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). It has thus satisfied the requirements of Rule 12(b)(6). Rule 12(c) further states that “[a]fter the pleadings are closed–but early enough not to delay trial–a party may move for judgment on the pleadings.” The court finds no basis on which San Juan County would be entitled to judgment on the merits on the basis of this briefing.

Materials on Alleged Extortion by Ute TERO Office

January 26, 2015Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are the relevant materials submitted in Ute Indian Tribe v. State of Utah (D. Utah):

238 Duschene Cty Counterclaim

271 Ute Motion to Dismiss Counterclaim

294 Duschene Cty Opposition to Motion to Dismiss

306 Ute Reply in Support of Motion to Dismiss

417 Ute Motion for Summary J

470 Duschene Cty Response to Motion for Summary J

481 DCT Order on Motion to Dismiss

The order:

At a hearing on January 10, 2013, with all parties present, this matter came before the Court on a Rule 12(b) motion filed by the Ute Indian Tribe of the Uintah and Ouray Reservation, Dkt. 271, to dismiss the counterclaims filed by Duchesne County, Dkt. 239. The Court, having considered the parties’ briefs and oral arguments, rules that Count 1 of the counter-complaint is dismissed with leave to Duchesne County to file an amended pleading within 20 days; the racketeering claims under Count 2 are dismissed for being facially deficient and failing to state a cause of action; and the Court denies the motion to dismiss the remaining claims under Counts 2 through 5 of the counterclaim.

713 Duschene Cty Supplement

771 Duschene Cty Supplement

My sense is that Judge Jenkins is waiting for the Tenth Circuit to decide other matters to make a decision on the tribe’s motion for summary judgment on Duchesne County’s counterclaim. That appeal involves the tribe’s claim that the state and counties are illegally prosecuting tribal members under state law.

In the motion for summary judgment, the tribe is arguing that Article III courts have no jurisdiction, or in the alternative the county must first exhaust tribal remedies.

Tenth Circuit Briefs in Harvey v. Ute Indian Tribe (Federal Removal; Tribal Jurisdiction)

January 21, 2015February 17, 2015Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here:

Appellant Brief

Appellee Brief

Reply Brief

Lower court materials here.

Tenth Circuit Affirms Dismissal of State Law Employment Claims against Ute Tribe

October 21, 2014Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the opinion in Becker v. Ute Indian Tribe of the Uintah Reservation.

Briefs are here.

Lower court materials here.

Summary Judgment Materials in Bivens Action by Estatet of Deceased Indian Graverobber

October 20, 2014Matthew L.M. Fletcher3 Comments

Here are the materials in Estate of Redd v. Love (D. Utah):

60-1 Motion to Dismiss

64 Opposition

69 Reply

76 DCT Order on Summary J

An excerpt:

This case arises following the tragic suicide of Dr. James D. Redd after his arrest for trafficking in stolen Native American artifacts, theft of government property, and theft of tribal property. The Estate of Dr. Redd brings this Bivens action against Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Agents Daniel Love and Dan Barnes. The Estate of Dr. Redd asserts that Agent Love and Agent Barnes violated Dr. Redd’s constitutional rights [2] by: (1) providing false information to obtain a warrant for Dr. Redd’s arrest and authorizing a search of his home; (2) using the illegally obtained search warrant to search Dr. Redd’s home; (3) using excessive force against Dr. Redd primarily by sending approximately 140 agents, many of whom were heavily armed and clothed in flak jackets, to raid and search Dr. Redd’s home; (4) violating Dr. Redd’s equal protection rights; and (5) violating Dr. Redd’s right to due process.

Defendants move to dismiss, arguing qualified immunity shields them from Dr. Redd’s claims. After careful consideration and for the reasons stated below, the court finds that Agent Love and Agent Barnes are entitled to qualified immunity on Plaintiffs’ first, second, fourth, and fifth causes of action because Dr. Redd has failed to allege enough facts to state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face. But, the court finds that Dr. Redd has pleaded facts that, if true, are sufficient to show that officials violated Dr. Redd’s clearly established constitutional right of protection against excessive force when Defendants employed between about 80 to 140 agents to raid and search Dr. Redd’s home.

And:

In January 1996, the Redds visited and collected Native American artifacts from an area they believed to be privately owned. Unbeknownst to the Redds, the BLM map they relied on was inaccurately drawn. The Redds were, in fact, collecting Native American artifacts from Cottonwood Wash, a Hopi ancestral burial ground. The Redds were arrested and charged with desecration of a human body. The arrest ultimately resulted in Mrs. Redd entering an Alford Plea in which she admitted no criminal conduct, and agreed to pay $10,000 to settle a civil suit related to the act. The state dropped all charges against Dr. Redd.