Federal Court Issues Decision in U.S. v. Washington Subproceeding 19-01

Here are the updated materials in United States v. Washington (W.D. Wash.), subproceeding 19-01:

61 S’Klallam Response

63 Upper Skagit Response

67 Lummi Response

68 Tulalip Response

69 Swinomish Response

74 Swinomish Reply

76 Upper Skagit Reply

77 Reply

78 Tulalip Reply

79 DCT Order

Earlier briefs here.

Ninth Circuit Briefs in Lummi Tribe U& A

Here are the materials in United States v. Washington, subproceeding 11-02 (W.D. Wash.):

Lummi Tribe Brief

Port Gamble and Jamestown S’Kllalam Tribes Brief

Tulalip Brief

Lower Elwha Tribe Brief


Lower court materials here.

Federal Court Concludes U.S. v. Washington 11-02 Subproceeding [Lummi + S’Klallam Tribes]

Here are the new materials in United States v. Washington (W.D. Wash.) [subproceeding 11-02]:

238 Jamestown and Port Gamble S’Klallam Tribes Motion

240 Lummi Response

244 Lower Elwha Response

247 Jamestown and Port Gamble Reply

252 Lower Elwha Motion

254 Lummi Response

255 Jamestown and Port Gamble Response

260 Lower Elwha Reply

262 Jamestown and Port Gamble Surreply

264 DCT Order

Ninth Circuit materials here and here.

Previous lower court court materials here.

Wilson v. Horton’s Towing Cert Petition [Montana; Exhaustion; Civil Forfeiture]


Cert Petition

Questions presented:

1. Does an Indian Tribe have authority under the second exception of Montana v. United States, 450 U.S. 544 (1981), to forfeit automobiles owned by non Native Americans for violation of tribal drug laws while on tribal land?

2. If so, does the Tribe have authority to seize a motor vehicle off reservation if it has probable cause to believe that the automobile previously contained illegal drugs while on tribal lands?

Lower court materials here.

Ninth Circuit Affirms Order Requiring Exhaustion over Tribal Seizure of Truck

Here is the opinion in Wilson v. Horton’s Towing.


Wilson Opening Brief

US Answer Brief

Appellee Brief


Lower court materials here.

Army Corps of Engineers Rejects Gateway Pacific Terminal

Download Memorandum for Record here.

The Corps has denied the permit to build a coal export facility near Cherry Point after deciding the impact to Lummi Nation fishing would violate their treaty rights.

Federal Court Orders Tribal Exhaustion in Challenge to Lummi Seizure

Here are the materials in Wilson v. Doe (W.D. Wash.):

57 Horton’s Towing Motion for Summary J

61 Wilson Opposition to 57

62 Horton’s Towing Reply

64 Horton’s Towing Response to 60 & 61

65 US Brief

66 Wilson Reply

67 DCT Order

An excerpt:

On October 22, 2014, Plaintiff Curtiss Wilson was stopped by a Lummi Tribe police officer while driving on the Lummi Reservation after drinking at the Lummi Casino. (Dkt. No. 4-1 at 2.) Lummi Tribal Police Officer Grant Austick stopped Plaintiff, searched his 1999 Dodge Ram Pickup, and developed probable cause that Plaintiff was committing a DUI. (Dkt. No. 4-1 at 2.) Officer Austick then called the Washington State Patrol and Plaintiff was arrested. (Id. at 3.) Plaintiff’s truck was towed by Defendant Horton’s Towing and impounded at the direction of the Washington State Trooper. (Id.)

The following day, Lummi Tribal Police Officer Brandon Gates presented a “Notice of Seizure and Intent to Institute Forfeiture” (“Notice of Seizure”) from the Lummi Tribal Court of the Lummi Tribe to Horton’s Towing. (Dkt. No. 4-1 at 3-4, 9.) The seizure and intent to institute forfeiture of Plaintiff’s vehicle was based on violations of the Lummi Nation Code [3]  of Laws (“LNCL”) 5.09A.110(d)(2) (National Indian Law Library 2016) (Possession of Marijuana over 1 ounce), and authorized by LNCL 5.09B.040(5)(A) (National Indian Law Library 2016) (Civil forfeiture section addressing Property Subject to Forfeiture, specifically motor vehicles used, or intended for use, to facilitate the possession of illegal substances.) (Dkt. No. 4-1 at 9.) Horton’s Towing released the truck to the Lummi Tribe. (Id. at 3-4).

Plaintiff brought suit in Whatcom County Superior Court and the case was removed. (Dkt. No. 1.) Plaintiff originally brought claims for outrage, conversion, and relief under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1988. (Dkt. No. 4-1 at 7-8.) All of Plaintiff’s claims, save conversion, have been previously dismissed either voluntarily or by Court order. (See Dkt. Nos. 25, 35, and 53.) Plaintiff’s conversion claim against both Horton’s and the United States is based on Horton’s release of the vehicle to the Lummi Tribe pursuant to the order served by Gates. (Dkt. No. 4-1 at 6.)

Defendant Horton’s moves for summary judgment, claiming the release of the vehicle was pursuant to the Notice of Seizure, and [4]  therefore with lawful justification. (Dkt. No. 57.) Plaintiff argues in response that the Notice of Seizure is invalid or not enforceable off the reservation. (Dkt. No. 61.) The United States moves for summary judgment based on, inter alia, Plaintiff’s failure to exhaust his administrative remedies. (Dkt. No. 65.) In response, Plaintiff regurgitates failed arguments from previous briefing, relying on an overturned, out-of-Circuit case and “maintaining” a line of reasoning with respect to Brandon Gates and the scope of employment that this Court has already ruled against. (Dkt. No. 66.)