Section 1983

An excerpt:

The district court dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction. The court held that Mr. Chavez’s lawsuit against the Tribal officials could not be maintained in federal court under §1983 because all of his challenges to the Tribal officials’ actions relied on Tribal law. See Burrell v. Armijo, 456 F.3d 1159, 1174 (10th Cir. 2006) (“A § 1983 action is unavailable for persons alleging deprivation of constitutional rights under color of tribal law, as opposed to state law.” (internal quotation marks omitted)); see also Polk Cnty. v. Dodson, 454 U.S. 312, 315 (1981) (observing that acting under color of state law is “a jurisdictional requisite for a § 1983 action”). Turning to the Tribe, the court held–after noting that Mr. Chavez failed to even address the Navajo Nation’s sovereignty–that Congress had not authorized suit “against tribal entities pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.” R. at 631. See Nanomantube v. Kickapoo Tribe in Kan., 631 F.3d 1150, 1152 (10th Cir. 2011) (“[A]n Indian tribe is not subject to suit in a federal or state court unless the tribe’s sovereign immunity has been either abrogated by Congress or waived by the tribe.”); E.F.W. v. St. Stephen’s Indian High Sch., 264 F.3d 1297, 1302-03 (10th Cir. 2001) (observing that tribal sovereign immunity “is a matter of subject matter jurisdiction”).
Mr. Chavez appeals.

Briefs and lower court materials are here.

Prisoner Case against Riverton Chief of Police Dismissed (Wind River Jurisdiction Issue)

May 14, 2012Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are the materials in Dewey v. Riverton Chief of Police (D. Wyo.):

DCT Order Dismissing Dewey Complaint

Wyo. Motion to Dismiss

ICWA-Related Federal Civil Rights Claim Dismissed

July 12, 2011Matthew 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

February 9, 2011Matthew 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

July 29, 2010Matthew 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.