Here are the available materials in United States v. Abousleman (D.N.M.):
Pueblo of Santa Ana
Federal Court Orders Indian Prisoner to Add Charging Tribe to Suit in ICRA Habeas Action
Here is the order in Talk v. Southern Ute Detention Center (D.N.M.):
Amerind Risk Management Corp. v. Blackfeet Housing — Complaint to Compel Arbitration
N.M. SCT to Consider State-Law Dram Shop Actions and Tribal Immunity under N.M. Indian Gaming Compacts
The New Mexico Court of Appeals last May decided Mendoza v. Tamaya Enterprises, Inc. (opinion link here), holding in part that the New Mexico Indian gaming compact signed by the Pueblo of Santa Ana waived tribal immunity in state court to state-law dram shop actions. The New Mexico Supreme Court agreed to review this case.
As readers will know, we’ve been following multiple state cases involving tribal immunity from state law dram shop actions (e.g., cases involving the Mohegans, and tribes in Washington and Oklahoma; broader discussion here).
As Pechanga reported, one personal injury firm in ABQ suggests that Mendoza “significantly curtailed tribal immunity.” That seems to be an exaggeration — at least when it comes to the common law of tribal immunity — in that it appears likely that the New Mexico compacts include a sufficiently broad waiver. But that remains to be seen as well.
