Section 1983 – Page 3

Last, Crist also names the Sandia Pueblo Police Department as a Defendant. The Sandia Pueblo Police Department is not a “person” within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 1983. There is no remedy against the Sandia Pueblo Police Department under § 1983 and the Complaint fails to state a claim for relief against the Sandia Pueblo Police Department Will v. Michigan Dep’t of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 63–64 (1989). In addition, although the Court does not reach the question, an issue exists as to whether Sandia Pueblo Tribal police officers act under color of state law and are subject to liability under § 1983. Compare Burrell v. Armijo, 456 F.3d 1159, 1174 (10th Cir. 2006) (tribal officers act under color of tribal law, not state law) and Evans v. McKay, 869 F.2d 1341, 1348–49 (9th Cir. 1989) (tribal officials acting in concert with state officials act under color of state law).

Federal Magistrate Recommends Section 1983 Suit against NY Oneida Police Proceed

July 17, 2017July 17, 2017Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are the materials so far in Alexander v. New York (N.D. N.Y):

1 Complaint

4 Magistrate Order

Federal Court Dismisses Wisconsin Oneida Suit over Renewable Energy

June 7, 2017June 7, 2017Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are the materials in Oneida Seven Generations Corporation v. City of Green Bay (E.D. Wis.):

10 Green Bay Motion to Dismiss

14 Opposition to 10

17 Reply

19 DCT Order

An excerpt:

Plaintiffs Oneida Seven Generations Corporation (OSGC) and Green Bay Renewable Energy, LLC, (GBRE) filed this action against the City of Green Bay pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging the City violated their rights to substantive and procedural due process when the Common Council voted to revoke a conditional use permit it had granted only one year earlier. The case is before the Court on the City’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules for Civil Procedure. The City also contends that the complaint fails to allege facts showing GBRE has any interest or suffered any loss in the transaction and that OSGC lacks capacity to sue under the laws of the Oneida Nation under which it was chartered. For these reasons, as well, the City argues that the claims against it should be dismissed.

Second Circuit Rejects Section 1983 Claim against Foxwoods/Pequot

October 6, 2016October 6, 2016Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here is the summary order in Sun v. Mashantucket Pequot Gaming Commission:

sun-v-mashantucket-pequot-gaming-commission

Briefs here.

Lower court materials here.