Here is the opinion in Luckerman v. Narragansett Indian Tribe:
Surveying the foregoing, a prior duty panel of this court cleared the underbrush by dismissing as untimely any appeal from the denial of the Motion to Dismiss. Luckerman v. Narragansett Indian Tribe, No. 14-1106, Order at 1 (1st Cir. Aug. 29, 2014). That decision obviates the need to decide whether we would have had jurisdiction over an interlocutory appeal from the Motion to Dismiss. We do need to decide, though, whether we have appellate jurisdiction under the collateral order doctrine to review the only order before us: the denial of the untimely Rule 59(e) Motion. For the reasons described below, we conclude that the denial of the Tribe’s untimely Rule 59(e) Motion does not qualify as a collateral order that we may review prior to the end of the litigation in the district court.
Lower court materials here.
Here is the order in Freeman v. Freeman (Paskenta Tribal Court):
PTCV-14-001-2014-5-29 – Preliminary Injunction Order
Here are additional materials in Luckerman v. Narragansett Indian Tribe (D. R.I.):
29 Motion to Correct the Record
34 DCT Order on Amending the Record
Meanwhile, the tribe has appealed the sovereign immunity issue here to the First Circuit.
Prior posts on this case are here and here.
Here are the updated materials in Luckerman v. Narragansett Indian Tribe (D. R.I.):
18-1 Narragansett Motion for Reconsideration
19-1 Luckerman Response
20 Narragansett Reply
22 DCT Order Denying Reconsideration
On August 29, 2013, this Court denied Defendant Narragansett Indian Tribe’s (“Tribe”) motion to dismiss, but stayed adjudication of the case pending tribal exhaustion. Now, the Tribe has filed a motion for reconsideration of that decision (ECF No. 18), re-emphasizing the Tribe’s position that its tribal sovereign immunity bars the instant lawsuit, and asking again that the Court dismiss the claims brought by Plaintiff Douglas J. Luckerman. For the reasons set forth below, Defendant’s motion for reconsideration is DENIED.
Earlier, the federal court remanded the case to tribal court for exhaustion purposes, post here. Other lower court materials here and here.
Here are the materials in Swearinger v. Paskenta Band of Nomlaki Indians Tribal Business Council (N.D. Cal.):
DCT Order Dismissing Complaint
Paskenta Band Motion to Dismiss
Paskenta Band Reply
Plaintiffs are “enrolled members of the Paskenta Band of Nomlaki Indians,” a federally recognized Indian tribe with “approximately 240 members.” Docket No. 1, Compl. ¶¶ 11, 13-14. Although Congress revoked PBNI’s status as a federally recognized tribe in 1958, it later restored the tribe’s federally recognized status in 1994 by enacting the Paskenta Band Restoration Act (PBRA), Pub. L. No. 103-454, §§ 301-03, 108 Stat. 4791 (codified as amended at 25 U.S.C. §§ 1300m et seq.). Compl. ¶ 21. The PBRA directed the Secretary of the Interior to conduct an “election for the purpose of adopting a constitution and bylaws for the Tribe.” 25 U.S.C. § 1300m-6. The PBRA further states that, after the tribe adopts a constitution, “such tribal constitution shall govern membership in the Tribe.” Id. § 1300m-4(b).
Here is the opinion.
The court’s syllabus:
Civil case – Indian law. Because the district court had adjudicated the issue of subject matter jurisdiction in the Sandy Lake Band’s previous suit, and Sandy Lake did not appeal from that decision or exhaust its administrative remedies, the court is bound by the district court’s original determination that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction; the district court’s dismissal order is affirmed, but modified to be without prejudice.
Sandy Lake Opening Brief
Federal Answering Brief
Sandy Lake Reply
Lower court materials here.
You must be logged in to post a comment.