Section 1983

ICWA-Related Federal Civil Rights Claim Dismissed

Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here is the opinion in Belinda K. v. County of Alameda (N.D. Cal.):

Belinda K v County of Alameda.

Here is an excerpt:

Plaintiff’s Count Sixteen is a § 1983 claim based on her allegation that her ICWA right to competent counsel in the Superior Court dependency proceedings was violated. Plaintiff alleges that the defendants “conspired and agreed that appointed attorneys would not as a custom and practice produce any written pleadings for the defense of their clients, nor would they be paid for their time to consult with their appointed clients.” Compl. ¶ 212. Plaintiff alleges that appointed counsel appeared in court but provided no “substantive actual effort, no investigation of the facts or the law nor vigorous defense or responsive pleadings” on behalf of appointed clients. Compl. ¶ 214. Plaintiff is asserting a direct claim for violation of ICWA (on the basis of ineffective assistance of counsel and on a number of other bases as well) in the related action, J.H. v. Baldovinos, pending before this Court. In Count Sixteen’s § 1983 claim, Plaintiff seeks to hold defendants liable for money damages and attorney’s fees based on this alleged violation. These remedies are not available to Plaintiff in her direct ICWA claim.

Tenth Circuit Rejects Section 1983 Claim by Pro Se Prisoner against Prairie Band Tribal Police

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the unpublished opinion in Johnson v. Pottawatomie Tribal Police Dept. See footnote 1 for an explanation of the caption.

Lower court opinion here.

Section 1983 Claim against Off-Reservation Police Officer Engaged in On-Reservation Duty Survives

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Because the officer had no jurisdiction in Indian Country: Jones v Norton (D. Utah).

An excerpt:

The Plaintiffs have filed this lawsuit against various Defendants in connection with the shooting death of Todd R. Mr. Murray which occurred while he was being pursued by police on the Uintah-Ouray Indian Reservation. Defendants Vance Norton and Vernal City move to dismiss the claims against them.

The court holds that Detective Norton did not have jurisdiction to seize Mr. Murray. Because there are disputed issues of fact concerning whether Mr. Murray was seized and whether exigent circumstances justified the seizure if it occurred, the court DENIES Defendants’ motion to dismiss the § 1983 claims. But the court holds that the Utah Governmental Immunity Act applies to state law enforcement on Indian reservations and accordingly GRANTS Defendants’ motion to dismiss the state law claims.

Sexual Orientation Discrimination Complaint against Quechan Tribal Housing Dismissed

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are the materials in Soto v. Quechan Tribally Designated Housing Authority (D. Ariz.):

Soto DCT Order

Quechan Motion to Dismiss

Soto Response

Federal Court Dismisses Federal Prisoner’s Complaint against Tribal Police

Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Mostly.

Here is the slip opinion in Johnson v. Pottawatomie Tribal Police Dept. (D. Kan.): Johnson v Pottawatomi Tribal Police

Section 1983 Claim Against Tribe Fails

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the opinion from the Eastern District of California (via a magistrate judge): Clark v Rolling Hills Casino.

Section 1983 Claim against Tribal Police Dismissed

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are the materials in Ouart v. Fleming (W.D. Okla.):

Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment

Co-Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss

Plaintiff’s Response

DCT Order Granting Motion

Federal Civil Rights Complaint against Puyallup Tribal Police Dismissed

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are the materials in Boyd v. Puyallup Tribal Police (W.D. Wash.):

DCT Order to Show Cause

Boyd Magistrate Report

Boyd DCT Order Adopting Magistrate Report

Federal Court Dismisses Medical Claims against Northern Cheyenne Officials

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the opinion in Wallace v. N. Cheyenne Corrections Officers (D. Mont.) — Wallace v Northern Cheyenne Corrections Officers

An excerpt:

Frequently, prisoners bring denial of medical care claims in federal court pursuant to 42 U.S.c. § 1983. But Wallace cannot establish that the tribal entities and officers acted “under color of state law,” as is required to state a claim under § 1983. “[N]o action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 can be maintained in federal court for persons alleging deprivation of constitutional rights under color of tribal law.” RJ Williams Co. v. Fort Belknap Hous. Auth., 719 F.2d 979, 982 (9th Cir. 1983).

Boyd v. Emerald Queen Casino — No Section 1983 Claim in Tribal Trespass Case

Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here is the opinion; actually, an order to show cause — Boyd v. Emerald Queen Casino.

An excerpt:

Mr. Boyd purports to sue the Emerald Queen Casino, a security guard at the Emerald Queen Casino, and tribal officers of the Puyallup Indian Tribe for false imprisonment after a charge of criminal trespass was brought against him in Tacoma Municipal Court. Dkt. 5, p. 3. Mr. Boyd alleges that a “Puyallup Tribal officer along with employees of the Emerald Queen had worked together … to charge [him] with a crime of criminal trespassing in the first degree in Tacoma Municipal Court (Case # B00229679) which was Dismissed with Prejudice.” Id. Mr. Boyd further alleges that this has “created false imprisonment,” that he has lost his reputation, “which has become cruel and unusual punishment under the 8th Amendment, and that he has been discriminated against. Id