Here are the materials in Guidiville Rancheria v. United States (N.D. Cal.):
113 City of Richmond Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings
212 DCT Order Granting Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings
255 City of Richmond Motion for Atty Fees
289 DCT Order Granting Motion for Atty Fees
The tribe has appealed to the Ninth Circuit on the merits of the claim and has already filed their opening brief:
Judge Koh (N.D. Calif.) set aside and remanded the Fish & Wildlife Service’s Final 30-Year Rule that extended the maximum duration of permits to take bald and golden eagles from five years to thirty years. The order states that the FWS failed to demonstrate that neither an EIS nor EA was needed for this twenty-five year extension.
The motion for summary judgment was granted for all NEPA claims, denied in part due to unsubstantiated (two sentences) ESA claims.
Order here.
Original complaint and previous coverage here.
Here are the new materials in Four Directions v. Committee on Judicial Conduct and Disability of the Judicial Conference of the United States (N.D. Cal.):
83 DCT Order Granting Motion for Reconsideration
Prior materials here.
Here is the opinion in Big Lagoon Rancheria v. State of California:
From the court’s syllabus:
The en banc court affirmed the district court’s summary judgment in favor of a tribe that alleged that the State of California had failed to negotiate in good faith for a gaming compact under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act for Class III gaming on a parcel of land taken into trust for the tribe by the Bureau of Indian Affairs.
Rejecting California’s argument that the tribe lacked standing to compel it to negotiate in good faith under the IGRA, the en banc court held that the State’s argument amounted to an improper collateral attack on the BIA’s decisions to take the parcel of land into trust and to designate the tribe as a federally recognized Indian tribe. The en banc court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in failing to grant a continuance for additional discovery under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(f).
The en banc court dismissed the tribe’s cross-appeal as moot.
Links to oral argument and briefs here.
Here are the materials in Four Directions v. Committee on Judicial Conduct and Disability of the Judicial Conference of the United States (N.D. Cal.):
34 Petition to Preserve Evidence
Here is the order in Mishewal Wappo Tribe of Alexander Valley v. Jewell (N.D. Cal.):
Briefs are here.
Here is the opinion. The court’s summary:
The panel affirmed the district court’s judgment in favor of the federal government insofar as it upheld the Secretary of the Interior’s denial of the application of Redding Rancheria (the Tribe) to operate multiple casinos on restored lands, and reversed in part and remanded to the agency for consideration of the Tribe’s proposal to close its existing Tribal gaming operation upon construction of a new facility.
The Secretary denied the Tribe’s request to take into trust a substantial parcel the Tribe recently acquired for the construction and operation of a new gambling casino. The Indian Gaming Regulatory Act generally banned gaming on lands that tribes acquired after its enactment in 1988, but created an exception for tribes with restored lands. The agency denied the Tribe’s application because, at the time it was submitted, the Tribe was operating a modest casino on land it acquired earlier. The district court granted summary judgment to the government because the Tribe was seeking to operate multiple casinos, which the applicable regulations sought to prevent. While the application was pending, the Tribe advised the agency that it was willing to close down its original casino once the new one was in operation.
The panel held that the regulation at issue was reasonable, and the Secretary reasonably implemented the restored lands exception. The panel further held that the Indian canon (which provides that where a statute is unclear, it must be liberally interpreted in favor of Indians) did not apply in the circumstances of this case. The panel also held that the Secretary’s denial of the Tribe’s application was not inconsistent with prior agency practice, and was not arbitrary and capricious.
The panel held that the agency should have considered the Tribe’s alternative offer to move all gaming to the new casino, and vacated in part the district court’s summary
judgment with instructions to remand to the agency to address the issue.Judge Callahan concurred in parts I, II, and III of the majority’s opinion; and agreed that the regulation at issue was reasonable, the Indian canon did not apply, and there was no unexplained change in agency policy. Judge Callahan dissented from part IV of the opinion because the Tribe did not fairly prompt the Secretary to consider its alleged offer to move its casino and did not ask the district court to consider the alleged offer to remove the casino. Judge Callahan would not reverse in part and remand for further consideration.
Here is the news release. An excerpt:
On Wednesday, September 17, 2014, beginning at 10 a.m., the court will hear oral arguments in Big Lagoon Rancheria v. State of California, in which the state appeals the summary judgment by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California in favor of Big Lagoon Rancheria, an Indian reservation near Eureka. The lower court determined that the state violated the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act by failing to negotiate in good faith for a tribal-state gaming compact.
Here is the panel: Alex Kozinski, Harry Pregerson, Stephen Reinhardt, Diarmuid O’Scannlain, Susan Graber, William Fletcher, Richard Paez, Jay S. Bybee, Milan Smith, Morgan Christen, and Jacqueline Nguyen
En banc materials here.
Panel materials here.
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.