Here are the materials in Robinson v. United States (E.D. Cal.):
US Motion to Dismiss Robinson Complaint
US Reply Brief in Support of Motion to Dismiss
This case has already been dismissed before, see here.
federal sovereign immunity
Federal Court Dismisses Effort to Reopen Black Hills Judgment Fund
Here is the opinion in Different Horse v. Salazar and Rosebud Sioux Tribe (D. S.D.):
And the briefs:
U.S. Not Liable under FTCA for Off-Reservation Actions of Tribal Police
Here are the materials in Shirk v. United States (D. Ariz.):
Order Dismissing Shirk 08-27-10
US Motion to Dismiss Shirk Complaint
US Reply in Support of Motion to Dismiss Shirk
Incidentally, the opinion notes that the officers are immune from suit in state court, too.
Garcia v. United States: Cacophony in the Wedding Chapel
Here is the final opinion in Garcia, a Federal Tort Claims Act claim against an Isleta Pueblo tribal cop, who intervened to break up a fight at a wedding (or, in the words of the court, “Two Weddings and a Broken Jaw”): Garcia v. United States.
The court held after a two-day bench trial that the United States could be liable for the actions of an off-duty tribal cop under a 638 contract and the FTCA, but that the cop had not committed a tort.
D.C. Federal Court Dismisses Geronimo v. Obama
Here: DCT Dismissal.
Earlier materials are here.
Federal Sovereign Immunity Precludes Suit re: Intertribal Reservation Dispute
The case is Mesa Grande Band of Mission Indians v. Salazar (S.D. Cal.). Here are the materials:
Mesa Grande v Salazar DCT Order
An excerpt:
This case arises from a dispute between two neighboring Indian tribes over beneficial title to several thousand acres of land in this district. Its origins stretch back over a century. According to the FAC, President Grant issued an executive order setting aside approximately 15,000 acres for Mission Indians in California known as “Santa Ysabel — including Mesa Grande.” In a second order in 1883, President Arthur set aside 120 acres for the “Mesa Grande Indian Reservation.”
* * *
The fact that Plaintiff wants to have the current patents — under which the United States is trustee and Santa Ysabel the beneficiary — canceled and reissued to name the United States as trustee and Plaintiff as beneficiary does not change the analysis. The QTA’s Indian lands exception was intended to allow the United States to carry out its commitments to Indian tribes. Block, 461 U.S. at 283; Mottaz, 476 U.S. at 842-43 and n.6. While issuing a land patent in favor of Plaintiff might promote this goal, it would have the effect of taking land from Santa Ysabel. Plaintiff may be tacitly viewing this action as essentially a dispute between it and Santa Ysabel, with the United States as a disinterested stakeholder. Because Plaintiff cannot proceed against Santa Ysabel, it is therefore left to proceed against the United States. Yet allowing Plaintiff or any other litigant to sue the United States to cancel a land patent issued in favor of an Indian tribe would interfere with the United States’ trust commitment to that tribe, which is the very reason the United States has retained its immunity in such matters.
Turtle Talk 