Here is the opinion in Murgia v. United States (D. Ariz.), on remand from the Ninth Circuit: Order on MSJ 04-28-10.
Here are the Ninth Circuit materials.
Gila River Indian Community
Habeas Case on Consecutive Sentences out of Gila River
These cases are all going badly for tribal governments. It’ll be interesting to see if the appellate courts really get into the question.
This is Alvarez v. Tracey (D. Ariz.) — Alvarez-Gila River Case
Briones v. U.S. Cert Petition
This involves crimes committed on and around the Gila River Indian Community, prosecuted under the Major Crimes Act. Here is the petition: Briones v US Cert Petition.
It looks like a pair of interesting questions. There may be a decent shot for review if the petition’s representations are correct.
Questions presented:
1. Whether the District Court and the Circuit Court erred in admitting the out-of-court statements of Arlo Eschief to the jury by the prosecution through testimony of a law enforcement agent constituting hearsay testimony in violation of the Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause?
2. Whether the District Court had the jurisdiction under the General Crimes Act 18 U.S.C. § 1152 and the Major Crimes Act 18 U.S.C. § 1153, to apply federal statutes of crimes on Indian land not expressly authorized by Federal statute?
Arizona Supreme Court Accepts Gila River Indian Community Settlement in Gila River General Stream Adjudication
Opinion here.
Murgia v. Reed — CA9 Materials in Bivens Claim against Tribal Officers
Here are the materials in this case, in which the district court refused to dismiss a Bivens claim against tribal police. It was apparently argued on the same day last November as Bressi v. Ford (materials here):
There seems to be a rash of federal civil rights cases against tribal police (see also Jeanlouis v. Vidallia) under a wide variety of theories — FTCA, Sections 1981, 1982, 1985, and now Bivens. The Bivens claim is most unpredictable, of course, given that it is unprecedented as against tribal police. I’m sure insurers should be aware of this kind of claim and may be watching carefully.
Duwyenie v. Moran — Arizona COA Case Involving Parallel Tribal and State Custody Actions
Unusual case, involving what likely was the kidnapping of an Indian child in a child custody squabble originating in Arizona. One parent removed the child to South Dakota and initiated proceedings in the Rosebud Sioux Tribal Court after Arizona state court proceedings had begun. The other parent initiated tribal court proceedings on the same matter in Gila River Tribal Court, which was a smart move, since the tribal courts talked to each other, leading the RSTC to dismiss its part of the case and admonish the parent who (likely) kidnapped the child.
Here is the opinion.
NYTs on Gila River Water Rights
From the NYTs:
GILA RIVER INDIAN COMMUNITY, Ariz. — More than a hundred years ago, the Gila River, siphoned off by farmers upstream, all but dried up here in the parched flats south of Phoenix, plunging an Indian community that had depended on it for centuries of farming into starvation and poverty.
If that was not bad enough, food rations sent by the federal government — white flour, lard, canned meats and other sugary, processed foods — conspired with the genetic anomalies of the Indians to sow an obesity epidemic that has left the reservation with among the highest rates of diabetes in the world.
Now, after decades of litigation that produced the largest water-rights settlement ever in Indian country, the Indians here are getting some of their water back. And with it has come the question: Can a healthier lifestyle lost generations ago be restored?
Reviving the farming tradition will prove difficult, many tribal members say, because the tribes, who number 20,000, including about 12,000 on the reservation, have not farmed on a big scale for generations. Fast food is a powerful lure particularly for the young, and the trend of late has been to move off the reservation, to work or live.
Turtle Talk 