Eighth Circuit Restores Civil Rights Suit Brought by Water Protector Shot in Eye by North Dakota Cops [can I say pigs here? nah, I’m a pescaterian, BUT when even the Cato Institute wants you to lose maybe it’s right]

Here is the opinion in Mitchell v. Kirchmeier.

Diné Water Protector, Marcus Mitchell, in January 2017 at Standing Rock, ND. Photo: Hal Myers

Briefs:

Federal Court Dismisses Suit against Ysleta del Sur Pueblo Police over Off-Reservation, Pretextual Stop

Here are the materials in Holguin v. Ysleta del Sur Pueblo (W.D. Tex.):

1 Notice of Removal

1-1 Complaint

4 Motion to Dismiss

5 Motion to Remand

7 Tribe Response to 5

9 DCT Order Denying Remand

12 Response to 4

15 Reply in Support of 4

18 Surreply

19 DCT Order

Federal Court Dismisses Tribal Police Officer Suit against Moapa Band

Here are the materials in Dutchover v. Moapa Band of Paiute Indians (D. Nev.):

8 Amended Complaint

28 Motion to Dismiss

37 Response

42 Reply

53 DCT Order

Federal Court Dismisses Section 1983 Claim against Warm Springs Police Dept. Brought by Former Tribal Police Officer

Here are the materials in Weaver v. Gregory (D. Or.):

1 Complaint

10 Motion to Dismiss

14 Response

16 Reply

18 DCT Order

Federal Court Dismisses FTCA/Section 1983 Claim against Feds for Actions of Fort Peck Tribal Court

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

Cert Petition in McMahon v. Chemehuevi Indian Tribe

Here is the petition:

cert-petition.pdf

appendix.pdf

Questions presented:

1. Under Barker v. Harvey, 181 U.S. 481 (1901) and United States v. Title Insurance & Trust Co., 265 U.S. 472 (1924), did the Chemehuevi Indian Tribe’s failure to file a land claim under the 1851 Act extinguish any of the Tribe’s rights as to Section 36 as conveyed to the State of California for school purposes under the Enabling Act of 1853?

2. Given that this Court has found that states take title to property under the Enabling Acts subject to aboriginal title only where a preexisting treaty has preserved the aboriginal title, does the absence of any Chemehuevi Indian Tribe reservation at the time Section 36 was conveyed to the State of California under the Enabling Act of 1853 bar any claim by the Tribe or its members that Section 36 constitutes Indian country?

3. Does the Appropriation Doctrine bar any claim by the Chemehuevi Indian Tribe or its members that the 1907 Secretarial Order could transfer Section 36 to the Tribe after the property had already been conveyed to the State of California for school purposes under the Enabling Act of 1853?

Lower court materials here.

Update:

Cert Opp

Reply