Here.
Gila River Indian Community Posting for Chief Prosecutor
Here.
Gila River Indian Community
California COA Decides ICWA Notice Appeal
Here is the opinion in In re Brianna M.:
An excerpt:
Francisco contends finally that he is a member of the Gila River Community, a federally recognized Indian tribe. He urges that DCFS therefore was required by ICWA to provide notice of the proceedings to the tribe, and to give the tribe the opportunity to intervene. DCFS concedes that ICWA notice was not properly given and does not object to a remand with directions to the juvenile court to order DCFS to provide proper notice.Pursuant to 25 United States Code section 1912(a), “[i]n any involuntary proceeding in a State court, where the court knows or has reason to know that an Indian child is involved, [DCFS] shall notify the parent or Indian custodian and the Indian child’s tribe, by registered mail with return receipt requested, of the pending proceedings and of their right of intervention.” Welfare and Institutions Code section 224.2, subdivision (a)(1) similarly provides that notice to the tribe “shall be sent by registered or certified mail with return receipt requested.”
Because DCFS failed to provide proper ICWA notice, we remand the matter to the juvenile court with directions to direct DCFS to comply with the notice provisions of ICWA. However, we decline to reverse the jurisdictional and dispositional orders because there is not yet a sufficient showing that Brianna is an Indian child within the meaning of ICWA. If after proper inquiry and notice a tribe determines Brianna is an Indian child, any interested party may petition the court to invalidate any orders that violated ICWA. (See In re Hunter W. (2011) 200 Cal.App.4th 1454, 1467, 135 Cal.Rptr.3d 355; In re Damian C. (2009) 178 Cal.App.4th 192, 199–200, 100 Cal.Rptr.3d 110.)
Tohono O’odham Nation Seeks More than $4Million in Attorney Fees from State of Arizona
Here is the motion in State of Arizona v. Tohono O’odham Nation (D. Ariz.):
Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-348 reads:
A. In addition to any costs that are awarded as prescribed by statute, a court shall award fees and other expenses to any party other than this state or a city, town or county that prevails by an adjudication on the merits in any of the following:
1. A civil action brought by the state or a city, town or county against the party.
Update in Arizona v. Tohono O’odham Nation — Remaining Contract Claims Defeated
Here are the materials in State of Arizona v. Tohono O’odham Nation (D. Ariz.):
An excerpt:
For reasons explained below, the Court concludes that §§ 201(1) and 201(2) cannot be used by Plaintiffs to establish an enforceable oral agreement that the Nation would not open a casino in the Phoenix metropolitan area. The Court has already held that the Compact between the State and the Nation includes no such agreement, and that even Plaintiffs’ extrinsic evidence does not make the Compact’s terms reasonably susceptible to such a reading. Doc. 216. The Court now concludes that the Compact is a fully integrated written agreement under Chapter 9 of the Restatement, and that such an agreement between the parties forecloses any separate oral agreement. As a result, the Court will grant summary judgment in favor of the Nation on Plaintiffs’ § 201(2) claim and deny Plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration on the § 201(1) claim.
This concludes the trial court proceedings, mostly concluded in the court’s order granting summary judgment on most claims we posted about here.
Tohono O’odham Nation Largely Prevails in Compact Breach Dispute with Arizona — One Issue Remains
Here is yesterday’s order in Arizona v. Tohono O’odham Nation (D. Ariz.):
An excerpt:
Defendant Tohono O’odham Nation (the “Nation”) plans to construct and operate a major casino on unincorporated land within the outer boundaries of the City of Glendale, Arizona, which is in the greater Phoenix metropolitan area. The State of Arizona, the Gila River Indian Community, and the Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community (collectively “Plaintiffs”) argue that the proposed casino violates the 2002 Gaming Compact between the State of Arizona and the Nation (“the Compact”), and ask the Court to enjoin the casino’s construction. The parties have filed cross-motions for summary judgment, and the Court heard oral arguments on April 9, 2013. For reasons explained below, the Court will grant the Nation’s motion for summary judgment on all but one of Plaintiffs’ claims, and will require additional briefing on the remaining claim.
Briefs are here.
Ninth Circuit Denies Rehearing/En Banc Review of Maxwell v. County of San Diego — Tribal Officials Not Immune under Section 1983
Here is the order:
Maxwell v. County of San Diego (9th 2013)
An excerpt:
The panel has voted to deny the petition for rehearing in case number 10-56671; Judges Clifton and Ikuta vote to deny the petition for rehearing en banc, and Judge Farris so recommends. Judges Farris and Clifton vote to deny the petition for rehearing in case number 10-56706; Judge Clifton votes to deny the petition for rehearing en banc, and Judge Farris so recommends. Judge Ikuta votes to grant the petition for rehearing and the petition for rehearing en banc. The full court has been advised of the petitions for rehearing en banc and no judge has requested a vote on whether to rehear the matters en banc. Fed. R. App. P. 35. The petitions for panel rehearing and the petitions for rehearing en banc are DENIED.
Earlier materials are here: panel opinion materials and en banc petition.
Gila River Indian Community Attorney Job Posting
Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment in Arizona v. Tohono O’odham Nation
Here are the materials so far:
Tohono O’odham Motion for Summary J
Arizona & Gila River & Salt River Cross-Motion
Update (5/8/13):
The complaint is here.
News coverage from Pechanga.
Pending Ninth Circuit En Banc Petition Materials in Maxwell v. County of San Diego
You’ll recall the panel opinion here found that tribal employees have no official immunity for official actions.
Here are the en banc petition materials:
Yocha Dehe Wintun Nation Amicus Brief
Maxwell Response to En Banc Petition
Maxwell Supplemental Authorities Letter
The petition is still pending, but perhaps the Miller v. Wright amendment is evidence that the Ninth Circuit could take this case for en banc review.
Federal Court Grants Habeas Petition in Consecutive Sentences Case
Interesting case involving whether the Tribal Law and Order Act can be retroactively applied to a Gila River Indian Community conviction. Here are the materials in Johnson v. Tracy (D. Ariz.):
R&R Recommending Denial of Writ
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.