tribal court exhaustion doctrine – Page 22

Student Note on Meyer & Assoc. v. Coushatta Tribe

July 11, 2011Matthew L.M. Fletcher

The Louisiana Law Review has published “Denying Sovereignty: The Louisiana Supreme Court’s Rejection of the Tribal Exhaustion Doctrine” by Carey Austin Holliday.

We posted this opinion a few years back.

Here is the abstract:

In its recent decision in Meyer & Associates, Inc. v. Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana, the Louisiana Supreme Court declined to require the application of the Tribal Exhaustion Doctrine (the “Doctrine”) in Louisiana state district courts. The Doctrine is a federal jurisprudential rule that applies when a tribal court has a claim of jurisdiction over a dispute. It requires federal courts to abstain from hearing the case until the tribal court has determined whether it can properly retain jurisdiction over the matter. The effect of this ruling by the Louisiana Supreme Court is that tribal courts will be denied the ability, in many instances, to determine questions related to tribal sovereign immunity. The United States Supreme Court has not yet had the occasion to determine whether the Doctrine is required of state courts, and several states have reached different conclusions as to whether their courts will be required to apply the Doctrine. Upon further examination of federal common law, as well as strong prudential considerations in favor of the Doctrine’s application, it becomes apparent that the Louisiana Supreme Court erred in declining to apply the Doctrine to Louisiana state district courts.

Federal Court Dismisses Effort to Block Rincon Eviction of Non-Indian (Alleged) Trespassers

July 8, 2011July 7, 2011Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are the materials in Rogers-Dial v. Rincon Band of Luiseno Indians (S.D. Cal.):

DCT Order Dismissing Rogers-Dial Complaint

Rogers-Dial Motion for PI — Part 1

Rogers-Dial Motion for PI — Part 2

Rogers-Dial Motion for PI — Part 3

Rincon Motion to Dismiss

We posted the complaint here.

Federal Govt. Effort to Enforce Trespass Law on Makah Allotment Sent to Tribal Court

June 27, 2011June 27, 2011Matthew L.M. Fletcher2 Comments

Here are the materials in United States v. Ray (W.D. Wash.):

Ray Motion to Dismiss

US Opposition & Motion to Dismiss

Ray Reply

DCT Order Staying Ray Case

Federal Court Rejects Leech Lake Band Regulatory Authority over Otter Tail Power

June 27, 2011June 27, 2011Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are the materials in Otter Tail Power v. Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe (D. Minn.):

Otter Tail Power Motion for TRO

Leech Lake Opposition

Otter Tail Reply

DCT Order Granting Otter Tail TRO

Grand Canyon Skywalk Contract Dispute Materials

June 25, 2011Matthew L.M. Fletcher2 Comments

We posted the complaint and a motion for a TRO earlier here.

As Indianz reported, the federal court has dismissed the claim for failure to exhaust tribal remedies (and in heavy reliance upon the Ninth Circuit’s recent decision in the Water Wheel case).

Here are those materials:

Hualapai Motion to Dismiss

GCSD Opposition

Hualapai Reply

Grand Canyon Skywalk v. Vaughn (DAriz 2011)

Calif. Federal Magistrate Recommends Asserting Jurisdiction over Nevada Tribe ICW Case

June 13, 2011Matthew L.M. Fletcher3 Comments

Here is the court’s summary:

Plaintiff is proceeding pro se in this action, which was referred to the undersigned pursuant to Local Rule 302(c)(21). As a grandparent of two children associated with the Washoe Tribe, plaintiff seeks custody of her grandchildren despite the previous action of the Washoe Tribal Court and the Inter-Tribal Court of Appeal of Nevada. Presently pending is defendant’s motion to dismiss this action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim, for failure to exhaust tribal court remedies and for sovereign immunity.

The interrelationship of federal and tribal courts is a delicate and often complex matter. This case fits that mold. While it is clear that a federal court may have jurisdiction over a non-Indian’s federal claim, Boozer v. Wilder, 381 F.3d 931 (9th Cir. 2004), the parameters of that claim are not clear, i.e., jurisdiction over what. Nor does plaintiff’s complaint make clear what she seeks. Although alleging at one point that the Washoe tribal court lacked jurisdiction, and that she was denied due process in some manner, plaintiff does not clearly specify her precise claims or ask for any certain relief. In supplemental briefing on the jurisdictional question (Docket #25), plaintiff indicated that she wished the children returned to her.

The undersigned finds that the court has subject matter jurisdiction over a claim by plaintiff, and that claim may include an attack on the tribal court jurisdiction and any constitutional claims that plaintiff may have, e.g., lack of due process in taking the children from non-Washoe lands, lack of due process in the tribal court, alleged fundamental right of a grandparent to custody over grandchildren in the circumstances of this case. The undersigned will defer ruling on the validity of any such claims until they are specified with greater particularity and further facts are known. Likewise, the undersigned will not attempt to define now what remedies may be available. The undersigned further concludes that plaintiff has exhausted her tribal court remedies. With respect to sovereign immunity, the court will defer ruling on such a claim until after an amended complaint is filed setting forth with preciseness the nature of plaintiff’s claims and appropriate defendants.

Here are the materials so far in Fred v. Washoe Tribe (E.D. Cal.):

Washoe Motion to Dismiss

Fred Opposition

Washoe Reply

Fred v Washoe Magistrate Report

Federal Court Dismisses Action to Enjoin Tribal Court Action for Failure to Exhaust Tribal Remedies

May 27, 2011Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are the materials in City of Wolf Point v. Mail (D. Mont.):

City Motion for Default Judgment

DCT Order Dismissing City Complaint

From the opinion:

This action, alleging jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, was brought by the City of Wolf Point, Mayor DeWayne Jager, Wolf Point Police Commissioners, Wolf Point City Council, Police Chief Jeff Harada, and Troy Melum (collectively “City”) against Julianne Mail (“Mail”) and Alyssa Eagle Boy (“Eagle Boy”). It was filed on the heels of commencement of suit by Mail and Eagle Boy in Fort Peck Tribal Court against the Plaintiffs here, seeking compensatory damages, punitive damages, legal fees, and costs for claims under tribal law arising from an alleged altercation between Mail, Eagle Boy, and Troy Melum, who is characterized as a City of Wolf Point Animal Control Officer. Plaintiffs seek a judgment of dismissal of the pending tribal court case on subject matter jurisdiction grounds.