Here are the materials (some of them anyway) in Lewis v. White Mt. Apache Tribe (D. Ariz.):
ICRA habeas
Federal Court to Hear ICRA Habeas Claim in Child Custody Case at Absentee Shawnee
Here are the materials in Rosser v. Rosser (W.D. Okla.):
Jennifer Rosser Opposition to John Rosser Motion
Tribal Judge Motion to Dismiss
Jennifer Rosser Opposition to Judge Motion
Complicated, ugly case, like so many family law cases. An excerpt:
As noted above, Plaintiff seeks two forms of relief. First, a writ of habeas corpus ordering the return of her daughter, K.T., and, second, a declaratory judgment determining the jurisdiction of the tribal court. 25 U.S.C. § 1303 provides that a writ of habeas corpus shall “be available to any person, in a court of the United States, to test the legality of his detention by order of an Indian tribe.” Although as a general matter courts will not use this statute to intervene in child custody determinations, the facts as alleged in this case warrant a departure from the usual practice. According to the allegations in Plaintiff’s Complaint, the tribal court has ordered custody of K.T. be awarded to a person who has no legal status to her. Thus, this case is distinguishable from the typical child custody dispute where the losing party is simply seeking a different court’s take on a custody determination between two parties. Because Plaintiff has set forth allegations which state a plausible claim for relief under § 1303, Defendant Rosser’s Motion to Dismiss pursuant to 12(b)(6) will be denied.
Federal Court Stays ICRA Habeas re: ICW Matter Pending Exhaustion of Tribal Court Remedies
Here is the order in Jones v. Lummi (W.D. Wash.):
DCT Order on Tribal Court Exhaustion
An earlier order in this matter is here.
Tenth Circuit Affirms Dismissal of ICRA Habeas Petition for Failure to Exhaust Tribal Remedies
Here are the materials in Valenzuela v. Silversmith, arising out of the Tohono O’odham Nation courts:
An excerpt:
Alvin Valenzuela, an enrolled member of the Tohono O’odham Nation (the “Nation”), through counsel, filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 25 U.S.C. § 1303 seeking relief from tribal court convictions and his sentence. While Mr. Valenzuela’s petition was pending in federal district court, he completed his sentence and was released from prison. The district court concluded that Mr. Valenzuela’s claims were moot because of his release. Alternatively, it concluded that Mr. Valenzuela had failed to exhaust his tribal remedies before seeking habeas relief in federal court. Based on these alternative grounds, the district court dismissed Mr. Valenzuela’s § 1303 petition. Exercising jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we affirm on the ground that Mr. Valenzuela failed to exhaust his tribal court remedies and remand for the district court to dismiss his § 1303 petition without prejudice.
ICRA Habeas Claim re: Lummi ICW Case Dismissed
Here are the materials in Jones v. Lummi Tribal Court (W.D. Wash.):
Jones Habeas Petition Memorandum
Jones Reponse to Show Cause Order
R&R Recommending Jones Complaint Dismissal
DCT Order Dismissing Jones Complaint
ICRA Habeas Challenge to Makah Banishment Order Dismissed
Here are the materials in Wilbur v. Makah Tribal Court (W.D. Wash.):
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
Federal DCT Decides ICRA Right to Counsel Case Out of Gila River Criminal Court
Here are the materials in Jackson v. Tracy (D. Ariz.):
UPDATE (9/21/12): Amended DCT Order
Federal Court Denies ICRA Habeas Writ in Right to Counsel Case
Here is the order.
This could be a case to watch if the dicta in United States v. Lara is to be believed.
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.