Eighth Circuit

Eight Circuit Decides Wolfchild Appeal

Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here is the opinion in Wolfchild v. Redwood County.

An excerpt:

Appellants-plaintiffs filed this purported class action claiming the right to title and possession of twelve square miles of land in southern Minnesota (“twelve square miles”). Specifically, Appellants allege they are lineal descendants of the Mdewakanton band of the Sioux tribe who were loyal to the United States during the 1862 uprising (“loyal Mdewakanton”). Appellants claim the Secretary of the Interior set apart the twelve square miles for the loyal Mdewakanton and their descendants and, thereby, the loyal Mdewakanton have the exclusive right to title, use, and possession of the twelve square miles. Appellees physically possess or claim a property interest in the twelve square miles. The issues underlying this case are complex, requiring interpretation of over 150-year-old statutes, regulations, and legislative history, understanding of past mistreatment of Indian tribes by the United States, and a complicated area of the law. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm the district court’s grant of Appellees’ motions to dismiss. But we conclude the district court abused its discretion when imposing sanctions and vacate the district court’s sanctions order. We, further, hold issues relating to the appellate-cost bond are moot. But we remand to the district court for the limited purpose of assessing whether the municipal government Appellees (“Municipal Appellees”) are entitled to costs pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d) and 28 U.S.C. § 1920.

Briefs here.

Eighth Circuit Affirms Indian Country Assault Convictions

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the opinion in United States v. Rainbow.

An excerpt:

Christopher Rainbow (Christopher) and Jordan Rainbow (Jordan) were found guilty of assault with a dangerous weapon and assault resulting in serious bodily injury, both in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2, 113, and 1153. On appeal, they argue that the district court erred in admitting into evidence certifications of Indian blood and 1 in denying their requests to instruct the jury on lesser-included offenses. Jordan also argues that the district court erred in asking certain questions of a doctor who treated the victim and that the evidence isinsufficient to support his convictions. We affirm

Eighth Circuit Affirms Indian Country Habitual DV Offender Conviction

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the opinion in United States v. Harlan.

Eighth Circuit Affirms $5M Fine against Bettor Racing

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the opinion in Bettor Racing Inc. v. National Indian Gaming Commission.

Briefs here.

8th Circuit Finds Tribal Cop Working under BIA Contract was Federal Officer when Assaulted

Sarah M Donnelly

Link to memorandum in re U.S. v. Janis (Jan. 15 2016) here.

Defendant’s brief here and reply brief here.

United States’ brief here.

Previous coverage here.

Defendant raised two questions on appeal: (1) whether officers in the Dept. of Public Safety on the Pine Ridge Reservation are federal officers authorized to carry out tribal law and (2) whether the court erred in instructing the jury to find Officer Mousseau a federal officer as a matter of law.

The Eighth Circuit held that through the Indian Law Enforcement Reform Act a “638 contract” between the BIA and the Oglala Sioux Tribe explicitly required officers to enforce both tribal and federal laws.

However, it decided that the district court erred on jury instructions because although it was correct to rule as a matter-of-law that Oglala Sioux’s Public Safety officers were federal officers for the purpose of 18 U.S.C. § 111, it should have been up to the jury to determine whether Officer Mousseau was a Dept. of Public Safety officer at the time of the assault.  The Court determined the error was harmless, though, since evidence on record made it clear beyond a reasonable doubt that a rational jury would find Mousseau an officer when she responded to a complaint of illegal alcohol consumption at a home on the Reservation.

Eighth Circuit Briefs in Wolfchild v. Redwood County/Kaardal Sanctions Appeal

Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here:

Counties Brief

Kaardal Sanctions Brief

Landowners Brief

Landowners Sanctions Brief

Lower Sioux Indian Community Brief

Pro Se Amicus Brief

Wolfchild Opening Brief

Wolfchild Sanctions Brief

Lower court materials here, here, and here.

Eighth Circuit Briefs in Corporate Commission of the Mille Lacs Band of Ojibwe Indians v. Wolfington

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here:

Wolfington Brief

Mille Lacs Brief

Lower court materials here.

Supreme Court Cert Petition in Two Shields v. Wilkinson

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here:

Two Shields Cert Petition

ILTF Amicus Brief in Support of Petition

Law Profs Amicus Brief in Support of Petition

Questions presented:

In Temple v. Synthes Corp., 498 U.S. 5 (1990) (per curiam), this Court unanimously held that joint tortfeasors are not required parties under Rule 19(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure because “[i]t has long been the rule that it is not necessary for all joint tortfeasors to be named as defendants in a single lawsuit.” Id. at 7. Six circuits have recognized the rule that joint wrongdoers are not required parties under Rule 19(a). Three circuits now have followed the opposite rule in holding that, in some circumstances, a joint tortfeasor is a required party, while case law in the Seventh Circuit is conflicted. The Eighth Circuit below followed the minority line of the circuit split to affirm the district court’s dismissal of the action under Rule 19 for failure to join the United States.

The question presented is: Does Rule 19 incorporate the common law rule that joint tortfeasors are not required parties?

Lower court materials here.

NCAI Amicus Brief in United States v. Bryant

Sarah M Donnelly

Brief in Support of Petitioner here.

U.S. cert petition previously posted here.

United States v. Bryant Cert Petition — Federal Habitual Offender Statute and Uncounseled Tribal Court Convictions

Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here is the petition:

Cert Petition

Question presented:

Section 117(a) of Title 18, United States Code, makes it a federal crime for any person to “commit[] a domestic assault within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States or Indian country” if the person “has a final conviction on at least 2 separate prior occasions in Federal, State, or Indian tribal court proceedings for” enumerated domestic-violence offenses. 18 U.S.C. 117(a).

The question presented is whether reliance on valid uncounseled tribal-court misdemeanor convictions to prove Section 117(a)’s predicate-offense element violates the Constitution.

Lower court materials here (en banc) and here (panel).