Federal Court Allows FTCA Claim Arising under 638 Contract to Proceed [Mississippi Choctaw]

Here are the materials in Chipmon v. United States (S.D. Miss.):








Fort McDermitt Prevails over IHS on Clinic in Oregon

Here are the materials in Fort McDermitt Paiute & Shoshone Tribe v. Azar (formerly Price) (D. Or.):

31 Tribe Second MSJ

33-1 US Second MSJ

35 Tribe Reply

37 US Reply

40 DCT Order

Prior post here.

Ninth Circuit Materials in Southcentral Foundation v. Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium





Available district court materials (many filings are sealed, including the district court order):






Federal Court Denies Summary Judgment on Funding Issue re: IHS Clinic near Oregon

Here are the materials in Fort McDermitt Paiute & Shoshone Tribe v. Price (D. D.C.):

1 Complaint

14 Tribe Motion for Summary J

15 IHS Motion for Summary J

18 Tribe Reply

20 IHS Reply

24 DCT Order

Navajo Nation Prevails in D.C. Circuit over 2014 Annual Funding Agreement Dispute

Here is the opinion in Navajo Nation v. Dept. of Interior:


An excerpt:

The Navajo Nation delivered a proposed funding agreement to the Bureau of Indian Affairs, an agency within the United States Department of the Interior, during a partial government shutdown. By law, the BIA had 90 days after receipt to act on the proposal or it would be deemed approved. The BIA did not consider the proposal “received” until normal government operations later resumed, and issued a partial declination 90 days after that date. The Nation filed an action to enforce the proposal, contending that the BIA’s declination was untimely. The district court granted summary judgment to the DOI, holding that because the Nation had remained silent when the BIA indicated its position on the deadline, the Nation was equitably estopped from asserting an earlier one. The Nation brought the present appeal. We reverse the judgment.

Briefs here.

Lower court materials here.

Navajo Loses 2014 Self-Determination Contract Funding Challenge

Here are the materials in Navajo Nation v. Dept. of Interior (D.D.C.):

15-3 Navajo Motion for Summary J

18 US Response

21 Navajo Reply

23 US Reply

30 DCT Order

An excerpt:

Plaintiff Navajo Nation (the “Nation”) alleges that the Bureau of Indian Affairs (“BIA”), an agency within the United States Department of the Interior (“DOI”), violated the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act, 25 U.S.C. § 450 et seq. (the “ISDEAA”), by failing to disperse calendar year (“CY”) 2014 funding to the Nation according to the Nation’s proposed CY 2014 annual funding agreement (the “Proposal”). Specifically, the Nation contends that DOI Secretary Sally Jewell (the “Secretary”) failed to approve or decline the Proposal within the statutorily-mandated 90-day window for doing so and that, as a result, the Proposal must be deemed approved as a matter of law.

The parties have each moved for summary judgment. Upon consideration of the parties’ motions and supporting briefs, and for the reasons set forth below, the Nation’s motion for summary judgment is hereby DENIED, and DOI’s cross-motion for summary judgment is hereby GRANTED.

Federal Court Holds Tribe and Council are Subject to Discover in FTCA Suit against US

Here are the materials in Matt v. United States (D. Mont.):

37 Motion to Quash

40-1 Opposition

42 Reply

45 DCT Order Granting Motion to Quash

An excerpt:

Matt seeks documents in the possession of the Fort Belknap Community Council. (Doc. 26-1 at 2.) In order to satisfy Matt’s request, Council would be required to take affirmative action to produce tribal documents. (Doc. 37 at 3.) If the Court granted Matt’s request the judgment would “interfere with public administration” of the tribe and would “compel [the sovereign] to act.” Maxwell, 708 F.3d at 1087-90. The recovery sought in this case would operate against the tribe. Matt should not be allowed to “circumvent tribal immunity” by addressing the Subpoena Duces Tecum to Mark Azure instead of to the tribe.

54 Motion to Compel

55 DCT Order

An excerpt:

The Council entered into an ISDEAA contract for the maintenance of the roads on Matt’s property. The Council and its tribal members should be deemed part of the BIA and subject to the FTCA. The Council and its tribal members should be subject to discovery related to the construction and maintenance of the roads covered by the ISDEAA contract.