Here is the opinion in Becker v. Ute Indian Tribe of the Uintah Reservation.
Briefs are here.
Lower court materials here.
District of Utah
Summary Judgment Materials in Bivens Action by Estatet of Deceased Indian Graverobber
Here are the materials in Estate of Redd v. Love (D. Utah):
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.
Utah Navajo Trust Fund Breach of Trust Suit May Proceed without United States
Here are the materials in Benally v. Herbert (D. Utah):
Tenth Circuit Briefs in Ute Indian Tribe v. State of Utah
Here:
Tribal Jurisdiction Matter Remanded to State Court Because Tribe Waited Too Long to Remove to Federal Court
Here are materials in Harvey v. Ute Indian Tribe of the Uintah and Ouray Reservation (D. Utah):
2-1 Amended State Court Complaint
15 Plaintiffs Motion to Remand
Tenth Circuit Briefs in Becker v. Ute Indian Tribe — Former Employee Contract Claims
Update in Ute Indian Tribe-Uintah County-State of Utah Jurisdictional Dispute
Here are the new materials in Ute Indian Tribe v. Utah (D. Utah):
222 Ute Indian Tribe Motion to Dismiss Uintah County Counterclaim
249 Uitah County Opposition to 222
250 Uintah County Motion to Dismiss
270 Tribe Motion to Dismiss Utah’s Counterclaim
278 Tribe Motion to Dismiss Uintah County Amended Counterclaim
295 Uintah County Response to 278
321 Tribe Motion to Dismiss 3rd Party Complaint
335 Ute Indian Tribe Motion for Partial Summary J 458 Utah Motion for Partial Summary J
461 Uintah County Motion for Summary J
535 Ute Indian Tribe Opposition to 461
582 DCT Order re: 222, 250, 270, 321
Ute Tribe Prevails in Tenth Circuit Immunity Decision on Third Party Subpoenas/Collateral Order Doctrine
Here are the materials in Bonnet v. Ute Indian Tribe:
An excerpt:
The issue before us is whether a subpoena duces tecum served on a non-party Tribe and seeking documents relevant to a civil suit in federal court is itself a “suit” against the Tribe triggering tribal sovereign immunity. Exercising jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, pursuant to the collateral order doctrine, we hold the answer is yes. We therefore reverse the district court’s denial of the Tribe’s motion to quash based on tribal immunity.
And the briefs:
Lower court materials here.
Ute Indian Tribe Sues State of Utah over State Prosecutions of Tribal Members for On-Reservation Conduct
Here are the materials so far in Ute Indian Tribe of the Uintah and Ouray Reservation v. State of Utah (D. Utah):
News coverage here.
Federal Court Dismisses Former Ute Employee’s Employment Contract Claims
Here are the materials in Becker v. Ute Indian Tribe of the Uintah and Ouray Reservation (D. Utah):
26 DCT Order Denying Motion to DQ Counsel
32 DCT Order Dismissing Complaint
An excerpt:
Because plaintiff’s complaint does not, on its face, plead causes of action created by federal law, and because the plaintiff’s causes of action do not include, as an essential element, any right or immunity created by federal law, the court concludes that plaintiff’s claims do not meet the “arising under” standard for federal-question jurisdiction and that the court is therefore without jurisdiction to hear plaintiff’s claims. Accordingly, the court GRANTS defendants’ motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and DISMISSES plaintiff’s amended complaint.
On what must have been a slow news day we posted the complaint here.
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.