Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community

Eighth Circuit Affirms Dismissal of Shakopee Tribal Member’s Prisoner Rights Claim

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the opinion in Brooks v. Roy.

An excerpt:

According to Brooks, he was placed into a 12-step program at New Dimensions because there is no alternative program at MCF-Faribault for those of a Native American faith. He says that the program “conflicts with his Native American religious faith” because it forces him to “profess beliefs that are inconsistent with his faith, which he does not wish to do.” Brooks does not, however, specify his religion or allege which principles of his religion are compromised or unaccommodated at MCF-Faribault. Instead, he requests to participate in what he asserts is a culturally appropriate treatment program available at the Mash-ka-wisen treatment center in Sawyer, Minnesota, which is 191 miles north of MCF-Faribault. Brooks says the defendants denied his request, and he appealed their decision until, he alleges, he had exhausted his administrative remedies.

Briefs:

Appellant Brief

Appellee Brief

Reply Brief

 

Materials in Minnesota/Shakopee Concurrent Jurisdiction Matter

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are the materials in Lieske v. Liekse, litigating concurrently in Shakopee and Scott County, MN courts:

783-14 – Clerk’s Notice – Memorandum Opinion and Order – 5-15-14 [tribal court decision]

783-14 – Respondent (husband) Lieske’s Motion Dismiss Affidavit Lieske Memo of Law – 4-23-14 [tribal court motion]

783-14 – Scott County Decision on Jurisdiction – 5-8-14

11 18 14 Lieske State Court 2nd Decision on jurisdiction

Notice of Motion and First Affidavit to State court

Respondent Brief to State court on Jurisdiction

Wife Second Affidavit and supp brief to state ct

National Park Service Releases Effigy Mounds Desecration Report

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here:

EFMO_FOIA_ForWeb-2

News coverage here.

Federal Court Refuses to Intervene in Divorce Proceedings in Shakopee Tribal Court

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are the materials in Lightfoot v. Jewell (D. Minn.):

13 Thomas Motion to Dismiss

18 Shakopee Motion to Dismiss

23 Lightfoot Motion for TRO

33 Thomas Opposition to TRO

35 Interior Opposition to TRO

37 Tribal Opposition to TRO

44 DCT Order Denying TRO

NYTs on the Shakopee Mdewakanton and the Growing Threat to Indian Gaming

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here.

Update in Wolfchild Case

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

More materials from the Court of Federal Claims in the Wolfchild case:

US Motion to Dismiss

Wolfchild Motion for Summary J

Shakopee and Prairie Island Amicus Brief

Loyal Mdewakanton Suit in the Federal Circuit

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

From How Appealing:

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit examines the federal government’s obligations to the loyal Mdewakanton band of the Sioux tribe: You can access today’s lengthy ruling at this link.

The case reaches the Federal Circuit from the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, whose rulings on the matter can be accessed here and here.

In late October 2004, Minnesota Public Radio had a report headlined “‘Loyal Mdewakantons’ win land dispute” about the first of those two rulings.

Shepherd v. Slade — Mystic Lake Casino Employee Dispute

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here, the Minnesota Court of Appeals in an unpublished decision declined to dismiss a claim for tortious interference with contract and other claims, denying a Rule 19 (state law) motion. From the opinion:

Appellant challenges the district court’s denial of her motion to dismiss respondent’s complaint on the ground that it is barred by the doctrine of sovereign immunity. Appellant asserts that the Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community (the tribe) is an indispensable party to the suit and that, because the tribe cannot be joined, the suit must be dismissed. We conclude that the tribe is neither a necessary nor an indispensable party and therefore affirm the district court’s decision.

Slip op. at 2.

The underlying dispute arose when the nonmember tribal casino employee was barred from the casino by the tribal court (and therefore terminated). The state trial court made disturbing statements about the tribal court, but the COA, while troubled, did not find those statements sufficient to reverse:

We agree that the district court’s comments are troubling. “‘Tribal courts have repeatedly been recognized as appropriate forums for the exclusive adjudication of disputes affecting important personal and property interests of both Indians and non-Indians.'” St. Pierre v. Norton, 498 F. Supp. 2d 214, 221 (D.D.C. 2007) (quoting Santa Clara Pueblo v. Martinez, 436 U.S. 49, 65-66, 98 S. Ct. 1670, 1680-81 (1978)); see also Lewis v. Norton, 424 F.3d 959, 962 (9th Cir. 2005) (“The issue is not whether the plaintiffs’ claims would be successful in these tribal forums, but only whether tribal forums exist that could potentially resolve the plaintiffs’ claims.”). The district court’s suggestion that the tribal courts could not provide an adequate alternative forum for Shepherd’s claims lacks foundation. The fact that Shepherd is the subject of a no-trespass order by the tribe does not necessarily mean that she cannot receive a fair trial of her claims against Stade in tribal court.

Slip op. at 10.