Federal Court Dismisses Suit against Ysleta del Sur Pueblo Police over Off-Reservation, Pretextual Stop

Here are the materials in Holguin v. Ysleta del Sur Pueblo (W.D. Tex.):

1 Notice of Removal

1-1 Complaint

4 Motion to Dismiss

5 Motion to Remand

7 Tribe Response to 5

9 DCT Order Denying Remand

12 Response to 4

15 Reply in Support of 4

18 Surreply

19 DCT Order

Manoomin v. Minnesota DNR Tribal Court Complaint re: Line 3

Here is the complaint in Manoomin v. Minnesota Dept. of Natural Resources (White Earth Tribal Court):

manoomin-et-al-v-dnr-complaint-w-exhibits-8-4-21

Mary Annette Pember’s coverage on the suit is here.

Federal Court Enjoins Pinoleville Pomo Nation Tribal Court Designed to Challenge Federal Court RICO Judgment

Here is the order in JW Gaming Development LLC v. James (N.D. Cal.):

363 DCT Order

An excerpt:

Shortly after judgment was entered in this case, PPN constituted its Tribal Court for the first time; there is no evidence that it ever existed in any meaningful way until then. Days after the newly appointed judge issued standing orders, PPN filed a civil complaint in that Tribal Court that seeks to (1) declare the judgment issued in this case invalid, (2) limit and control—indeed, vitiate—the scope of enforcement of that judgment, and (3) impose roughly eleven million dollars in liability on JW Gaming for alleged fraud stemming from the same loan agreement here. The lawsuit names not only JW Gaming but its attorneys in this matter and the bank at which PPN maintains accounts that was recently subpoenaed in the course of enforcement of the judgment. It is the first (and, as far as the record shows, only) case brought in the Tribal Court. Remarkably, up until the eve of the hearing on a temporary restraining order (“TRO”) against the proceeding, which I ultimately denied, JW Gaming could not find publicly available information about how appear in that proceeding (despite being served with a summons), who the judge was, or what the rules were.

JW Gaming moved for an order to show cause why an injunction should not issue, which I denied. It then moved for the TRO, which I converted into a motion for a preliminary injunction once PPN’s counsel committed to placing the Tribal Court proceeding on hold. That motion is now ripe for decision.

It is critical that federal courts respect tribal sovereignty and tribal court jurisdiction. Tribes are sovereign nations. Their ability to govern themselves and enjoy the full benefits of sovereignty is unquestioned. Tribal courts, as arms of the tribe, are entitled to substantial comity and deference under established federal law. I previously denied JW Gaming’s motion for an order to show cause why an injunction should not issue out of these concerns. I remain vigilant about the compelling interest that PPN has in maintaining its sovereignty.

Those concerns, however, do not prevent an injunction against a Tribal Court proceeding that seeks to invalidate or interfere with the judgment entered in this Court. There are compelling interests in ensuring that enforcement of valid federal-court judgments is not interfered with, that JW Gaming is not required to litigate a lawsuit precision-engineered to invalidate and interfere with this one, and that third parties are not exposed to court orders or liability for simply enforcing a judgment or attempting to comply with the procedures for enforcing it. To the extent the lawsuit seeks to invalidate the judgment or interfere with enforcement, it is unquestionably meritless: a tribal court lacks authority to invalidate a federal court’s judgments or to dictate the scope of executing that those judgments. JW Gaming has shown it is entitled to a preliminary injunction to the extent that the Tribal Court proceedings attempts to invalidate, interfere with, or thwart the judgment entered here. I possess jurisdiction to enter this injunction to protect and effectuate the judgment. The doctrine of tribal court exhaustion does not apply because PPN exercised its sovereign power to clearly, expressly, and unequivocally waive it.

Briefs and related materials here.

New Update in Adams v. Elfo [Nooksack Habeas Matter]

Here are new materials in Adams v. Elfo (W.D. Wash.):

56 Motion for Reconsideration

60 Response

62 DCT Order Remanding Motion to Magistrate

65 Nooksack Brief

66 Tribal Judge Brief

67 Adams Brief

69 Magistrate Report

70 Adams Objections

72 Tribe Response

73 Tribal Court Response

74 DCT Order

Prior post here.

 

Update in Adams v. Dodge [Nooksack Habeas Matter] — Updated

Here are the new materials in Adams v. Dodge (W.D. Wash.), formerly Adams v. Elfo:

45 Magistrate R&R on 2d Habeas Petition

46 Petitioner Objections

48 Supplement to Petitioner’s Objections to Magistrate’s Second Report and Recommendation

51 Tribe Response

52 Tribal Court Response

54 DCt Order Adopting Magistrate R&R

Prior post here.

Update:

56 Motion for Reconsideration

60 Response

62 DCT Order

Federal Magistrate Recommends in Favor of Tribal Jurisdiction over Utility Co-op

Here are the new materials in Big Horn County Elec. Coop. v. Big Man (D. Mont.):

99 Big Horn Response to Big Man MSJ

100 Big Man Response to Big Horn MSJ

102 Tribal Response to Big Horn MSJ

104 Big Horn Reply

105 Big Man Reply

106 Tribal Reply

129 Magistrate Report

Prior post with additional briefing here.

Update:

133 Objections

135 Big Man Response

136 Tribe Response

Federal Court Dismisses Challenge to Tribal TERO Order

Here are the materials in Hanson v. Parisien (D.N.D.):

1 Complaint

1-1 Tribal Court Order

1-2 Tribal Appellate Court Order

16-1 Motion to Dismiss

18 Response

19 Reply

20 DCT Order

Federal Court Dismisses Suit against Duck Valley Tribe for Failure to Exhaust

Here are the materials in Magee v. Shoshone Paiute Tribes of the Duck Valley Reservation (D. Nev.):

1 Complaint

10 Motion to Dismiss

10-1 Tribal Court Record

16 Response

25 Reply

26 Surreply

28 Objection to Surreply

40 DCT Order