Here are the materials in Gila River Indian Community v. Burwell (D. Ariz.):
Indian Health Service
Navajo Health Foundation ISDEAA Suit against IHS to Proceed in New Mexico Federal Court
Here are the materials so far in Navajo Health Foundation — Sage Memorial Hospital v. Burwell (D. N.M.):
8 HHS Motion to Dismiss or Transfer
37 DCT Denying Motion to Dismiss or Transfer
An excerpt:
THIS MATTER comes before the Court on the Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(3) or Motion to Transfer Under 28 U.S.C. § 1401(a),1 filed November 25, 2014 (Doc. 8)(“Motion”). The Court held a hearing on January 27, 2015. The primary issues are: (i) whether the United States District Court for the District of New Mexico is a proper venue for this case under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e)(1)(A); (ii) whether the District of New Mexico is a proper venue for this case under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e)(1)(B); and (iii) whether the Court will transfer the case to the United States District Court for the District of Arizona under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). First, the Court concludes the District of New Mexico is a proper venue for this case under § 1391(e)(1)(A), because Defendant Frank Dayish is domiciled in New Mexico. Second, the Court holds that the District of New Mexico is not a proper venue for this case under § 1391(e)(1)(B), because a “substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim” did not occur in New Mexico. 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e)(1)(B). Third, the Court will not transfer the case to the District of Arizona under § 1404(a), because Sage Hospital filed suit in the District of New Mexico, and because the District of New Mexico is a more convenient forum for the witnesses, the parties, and for obtaining the relevant documents than the District of Arizona is. Consequently, the Court will deny the Motion.
Hopi Member Claim of IHS Administrative Negligence under FTCA Survives Motion to Dismiss
Here are the materials in Shortman v. Robideaux (D. Ariz.):
An excerpt:
In August 2012, Shortman still had not heard from IHS. Walgreens and the Trustees again agreed to cover the cost of Shortman’s medications while IHS completed its eligibility evaluation. Id. By the end of September, Shortman still had not heard from IHS; Walgreens and the Trustees were growing concerned with continuing to fund her medications. Id. at 10-11. On September 27, 2012, Shortman turned to the White House for help. Id. Representatives from the White House [4] contacted IHS concerning Shortman’s application for medication. Id. That day, IHS completed the eligibility review process and determined that Shortman was eligible for her medication. Id. By that point, Walgreens, unaware of the decision at IHS, had advanced a month’s supply of medicine for delivery at the Hopi clinic. Id.
US Prevails in Wrongful Death Action/MedMal Brought against Indian Health Service
Here are the materials in Archambault v. United States (D. S.D.):
49 DCT Order Granting Summary J to the US
An excerpt:
Plaintiff, in the briefs, has lodged many complaints against the Indian Health Service (“IHS”) and the failures of the United States to live up to treaty obligations. The court sympathizes with the plaintiff. The problems within HIS are well known, at least to those of us with significant contacts with “Indian Country.” I have often observed that Native Americans have been and are being unfairly treated by the United States, considering the failed promises these many years. This court, however, cannot micromanage the IHS or even a single clinic. I cannot dictate how many hours per day or week or month any federal health care provider should be required to be on duty. The court also realizes how very difficult it is for any health care agency to recruit and retain qualified health care providers, especially in rural isolated areas. Living conditions are often sub-standard, especially for highly educated workers. The climate is rather harsh. The ultimate solution is for Native Americans to obtain the necessary education and skills to return to serve their families and others. That process has already started and improvements have been made by dedicated health care providers. Much more remains to be accomplished.
Prior post on this case here.
Menominee Tribe v. United States Cert Petition
Here:
Menominee Indian Tribe Cert Petition
Question presented:
Whether the D.C. Circuit misapplied this Court’s Holland decision when it ruled – in direct conflict with a holding of the Federal Circuit on materially similar facts – that the Tribe did not face an “extraordinary circumstance” warranting equitable tolling of the statute of limitations for filing of Indian Self-Determination Act claims under the Contract Disputes Act?
Lower court materials here.
Pyramid Lake Tribe Prevails in Suit against IHS
Here are the materials in Pyramid Lake Tribe v. Burwell (D. D.C.):
Federal Court Orders Additional Negotiation between Southcentral Foundation and IHS
Here are the materials in Southcentral Foundation v. Roubideaux (D. Alaska):
44 Southcentral Motion for Summary J
72 Southcentral Second Motion for PI
76 DCT Order Denying Second Motion for PI
We previously posted on this case here.
IHS Director Hosts All Tribes Call TODAY
IHS Director Hosts All Tribes Call TODAY
Dr. Yvette Roubideaux, Acting Director for the Indian Health Service (IHS), will host a call to provide updates about Contract Support Costs today, Thursday, September 4, from 3:00PM – 4:00PM (EST). Please see the call in information below:
Date: September 4, 2014
Time: 3:00 p.m. – 4:00 p.m. (EST)
Phone: 1-877-709-5343
Passcode: 6248121
IHS sent a letter to Tribal leaders on Tuesday, September 2, 2014, providing a written update for Fiscal Year 2014 Contract Support Costs. You can review it here. [Update: IHS to Moran 08-29-2014 IHS Contract Support FY14 Reprogramming Package]
Note: This call is off the record and not for press purposes. Please dial in 5-10 minutes early to help avoid any delays in joining the call.
D.C. Circuit Rules against Menominee Tribe in Equitable Tolling Appeal
Here is the opinion in Menominee Tribe v. United States.
An excerpt:
Delays caused by a party’s inauspicious legal judgments are not “extraordinary circumstance[s]” sufficient to justify equitable tolling. Faced with a variety of reasonable litigation options, the Menominee Tribe chose to wait and see if more favorable law would appear. In so doing, the Tribe allowed its claims to expire. Because we find that no obstacle stood in the Menominee Tribe’s way of bringing the claims within the limitations period, the judgment of the district court is affirmed.
Briefs and lower court materials here.
D.C. Circuit Rules against Menominee Tribe in Equitable Tolling Appeal
Here is the opinion in Menominee Tribe v. United States.
An excerpt:
Delays caused by a party’s inauspicious legal judgments are not “extraordinary circumstance[s]” sufficient to justify equitable tolling. Faced with a variety of reasonable litigation options, the Menominee Tribe chose to wait and see if more favorable law would appear. In so doing, the Tribe allowed its claims to expire. Because we find that no obstacle stood in the Menominee Tribe’s way of bringing the claims within the limitations period, the judgment of the district court is affirmed.
Briefs and lower court materials here.
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.