Gila River Indian Community

A description:

The Director, Defense Services serves as the lead defense attorney responsible for planning, directing, managing, supervising, implementing and achieving department strategic goals of the Defense Services Office of the Gila River Indian Community (GRIC). Work involves hiring and supervising attorneys to serve as defense attorneys; formulating and monitoring a departmental budget, reviewing proposed legislation; ensuring compliance with tribal, state, and federal governmental regulations; providing leadership and guidance; monitoring and evaluating case files; developing, implementing, and interpreting policies; and handling high profile cases on behalf of GRIC.

Arizona COA Decides ICWA Expert Witness Appeal

December 23, 2014Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here is the unpublished opinion in Charlotte G. v. Dept. of Child Safety.

An excerpt:

Charlotte G. (“Mother”) appeals the juvenile court’s order
terminating her parental rights to B.G. and W.G. (collectively, “the
children”). The children are members of the Gila River Indian Community
(“Tribe”).1 On appeal, Mother does not contest that the statutory grounds
for severance were proven, that there was a substantial likelihood that she
would not be capable in the near future of exercising proper and effective
parental care and control, and that severance of the relationship was in the
best interests of the children. Mother contends, however, that the juvenile
court erred in terminating her parental rights because the State failed to
prove additional elements necessary to terminate a parent-child
relationship under the Indian Child Welfare Act (“ICWA”). For the
following reasons, we affirm.

Partially Split Ninth Circuit Panel Adopts New Two-Part Test to Determing Federal FTCA Liability for Tribal Employee Actions under Self-Determination Compacts

December 8, 2014Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are the materials in Shirk v. United States:

Opening Brief

U.S. Answer Brief

Reply brief

Shirk v. USA (9th 2014)

From the court’s syllabus:

The panel vacated the district court’s dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction of a Federal Tort Claims Act action brought against the United States after Jennifer Rose was injured in a traffic accident following a police pursuit involving two tribal police officers employed by the Gila River Indian Community.

Loren Shirk, along with his wife, Jennifer Rose, alleged negligence by the tribal officers and loss of consortium under the FTCA. Congress extended the FTCA’s waiver of the United States’ sovereign immunity to claims resulting from the performance of functions authorized by the Indian Self- Determination and Education Assistance Act of 1975, commonly referred to as § 314.

To decide whether the tribal officers’ conduct was covered by § 314, thereby subjecting the United States to potential tort liability, the panel held as an issue of first impression, that it was first necessary to set out the analysis that courts should undertake when confronted with a § 314 claim where the alleged tortfeasors are employees of a tribe, tribal organization, or Indian contractor. The panel held at the first step of the § 314 inquiry, courts must determine whether the alleged activity is, in fact, encompassed by the relevant federal contract or agreement. At the second step, courts must decide whether the allegedly tortious action fell within the scope of the tortfeasor’s employment under state law. The panel held that if both of these prongs were met, the employee’s actions were covered by the FTCA; but a plaintiff’s failure at either step was sufficient to defeat subject matter jurisdiction. The panel remanded so that the parties could fully brief the issue and the district court could conduct a new analysis of its subject matter jurisdiction using this two-step framework.

Second Circuit Judge Sack concurred, and wrote only to register his doubts as to one of the district court’s conclusions which the panel’s opinion properly did not reach. If the panel were squarely presented with the issue, Judge Sack would conclude that the relevant agreements between the federal government and the tribe authorized the enforcement of Arizona state law by tribal police officers.

Judge Bea concurred in part, and dissented in part. Judge Bea agreed with the new two-part test articulated by the majority opinion, but he would not remand because there are no issues of fact that require remand.

Split Ninth Circuit Panel Dismisses Uncounseled ICRA Habeas Claim for Failure to Exhaust Tribal Remedies

December 8, 2014December 8, 2014Matthew L.M. Fletcher2 Comments

Here are the materials in Alvarez v. Tracy:

Alvarez v. Tracy (9th 2014)

Appellant brief

Answer brief

Reply Brief

From the court’s syllabus:

The panel affirmed the district court’s denial of a habeas corpus petition brought pursuant to the Indian Civil Rights Act, 25 U.S.C. § 1303 (ICRA), and 28 U.S.C. § 2241, in which Fortino Alvarez challenged convictions and sentences imposed by the Gila River Indian Community tribal court.
The panel declined to exercise jurisdiction over Alvarez’s claims and affirmed the denial of the habeas petition because Alvarez failed to exhaust his claims by bringing them first to the tribal courts, and did not demonstrate that unavailability or futility of direct appeal excuses the exhaustion requirement or that the Community’s appeals process did not comply with the ICRA.

Although the Community failed to raise Alvarez’s lack of direct appeal in its motion to dismiss, the panel considered the defense under Wood v. Milyard, 132 S. Ct. 1826 (2012), and Granberry v. Greer, 481 U.S. 129 (1987), and concluded that the strong comity and judicial efficiency interests at stake warrant federal abstention.

Dissenting, Judge Kozinski wrote that the majority does not live up to its solemn responsibility to appear impartial, when it forgives the Community, which was represented by counsel, for failing to raise an exhaustion defense in district court or on appeal, but holds Alvarez to his single oversight of failing, while unrepresented before the Community court, to raise his jury trial and confrontation claims by way of a direct appeal. On the merits, Judge Kozinski would find that the Community violated Alvarez’s right to a jury trial under ICRA by failing to inform him that he needed to request a jury, a structural error fatally undermining the conviction.

Judge Kozinski added:

I have read the opinion many times and disagree with pretty much everything in it, including the numerals and punctuation. I explain why in the pages that follow, but first I pose a more basic question: How can a court committed to justice, as our court surely is, reach a result in which the litigant who can afford a lawyer is forgiven its multiple defaults while the poor, uneducated, un-counseled petitioner has his feet held to the fire? I attribute no ill will or improper motive to my excellent colleagues. They are fair, honorable and dedicated jurists who are doing what they earnestly believe is right. But we see the world very differently.

Gila River Indian Community Court Clerk and Family Drug Court Counselor Job Openings

November 4, 2014Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here:

Court Clerk – Nov 2014

FMD Coordinator – Nov 2014

And here:

Court clerk

http://www.gilariver.org/index.php/about-tribe/opportunities-group2-opportunities/jobs/17-current-gric-job-openings/5059-14-2036-secretary-ii

Family Drug Court coordinator

http://www.gilariver.org/index.php/about-tribe/opportunities-group2-opportunities/jobs/17-current-gric-job-openings/4987-14-2036-secretary-ii

Press Release: Interior Announces $1.2 Million to Be Awarded to Tribes to Take Control, Operate Their Bureau of Indian Education-Funded Schools

October 24, 2014October 24, 2014Victoria Sweet2 Comments

As part of the Obama Administration’s historic commitment to ensure that all students attending Bureau of Indian Education (BIE)-funded schools receive a world- class education, U.S. Secretary of the Interior Sally Jewell and Assistant Secretary – Indian Affairs Kevin K. Washburn today announced that six federally recognized tribes have been awarded $1.2 million in Sovereignty in Indian Education (SIE) enhancement funds to promote tribal control and operation of BIE-funded schools on their reservations. The funds implement a recommendation contained in the Blueprint for Reform of the Bureau of Indian Education issued on June 13, 2014, by the American Indian Education Study Group convened by Secretary Jewell and U.S. Education Secretary Arne Duncan.

“Increasing tribal control over BIE-funded schools not only promotes tribal self-determination, but also provides greater tribal discretion in determining what American Indian children should learn, increasing accountability throughout the school system,” Secretary Jewell said. “With school management authority, these communities will have more power to create lessons with tribal cultural values and Native languages, both of which can ensure their children stay connected to their heritage and help them to succeed in the future. These enhancement funds can make the difference in an effective, relevant and rigorous education for American Indian children.”

The following tribes will receive enhancement funding:

Gila River Indian Community, Sacaton, Arizona

Standing Rock Sioux Tribe, Fort Yates, North Dakota

Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa, Belcourt, North Dakota

Tohono O’Odham Nation, Sells, Arizona

Navajo Nation, Window Rock, Arizona

Oglala Sioux Tribe, Pine Ridge, South Dakota

Full press release here.