tribal court exhaustion doctrine

Eighth Circuit Decides Kodiak Oil & Gas (USA) Inc. v. Burr]

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here.

Excerpt:

A dispute over the practice of flaring natural gas from oil wells fuels the legal controversy in this case: the scope of Native American tribal court authority over  nonmembers. Several members of the MHA Nation sued numerous non-tribal oil and gas companies in MHA tribal court. Those companies operate oil wells on lands within the Fort Berthold Indian Reservation that have been allotted to individual tribe members but are held in trust by the federal government. The tribe members alleged the companies owed royalties from wastefully-flared gas. Some of these companies unsuccessfully contested the tribal court’s jurisdiction over them in tribal court. Then they initiated this action in federal court to enjoin the tribal court plaintiffs and tribal court judicial officials. The district court issued a preliminary injunction, and the tribal court plaintiffs and officials separately appealed. We affirm the injunction because we conclude suits over oil and gas leases on allotted trust lands are governed by federal law, not tribal law, and the tribal court lacks jurisdiction over the nonmember oil and gas companies.

Briefs here.

Knighton v. Cedarville Rancheria Cert Petition

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here:

cert-petition.pdf

Questions presented:

“[T]he inherent sovereign powers of an Indian tribe do not extend to the activities of nonmembers of the tribe.” Montana v. United States, 450 U.S. 544, 565 (1981). The Montana Court recognized two limited narrow exceptions to that rule. But the Court has never resolved the question of whether tribal courts may ever exercise civil tort jurisdiction over nonmembers. In Plains Commerce Bank v. Long Family Land & Cattle Co., 554 U.S. 316 (2008) and in Dollar General Corporation and Dolgencorp, LLC v. The Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians, et. al. 136 S.Ct. 2159 (2016) the issue was brought before this Court, but unanswered. This case presents the issue of: Whether Indian tribal courts have jurisdiction to adjudicate civil tort claims against nonmembers?

Further this case presents the issue of: If the Indian tribal courts have jurisdiction to adjudicate civil tort claims over nonmembers, what is the prerequisite notice of any such authority, what is the prerequisite consent thereto by a nonmember, and what is the viable scope of such jurisdiction so as to satisfy the Due Process rights of a nonmember?

Lower court materials here.

UPDATE:

Brief in Opposition–PDFA

Muscogee Freedmen Descendants Forced to Exhaust Tribal Remedies

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the order in Muscogee Creek Indian Freedmen Band v. Bernhardt (D.D.C.):

29 DCT Order

Briefs here.

Ninth Circuit Panel Grants Rehearing in Knighton v. Cedarville Rancheria

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Maybe this is nothing, but this is a little bit WEIRD . . . in that the Ninth Circuit’s opinions webpage links to an order granting rehearing (here) but there was no response brief docketed AND there is nothing on the court’s docket sheet indicating the petition was granted.

Here is the petition BTW:

Knighton Petition for Rehearing

Panel materials here.

 

Federal Court Excuses Insurance Company from Tribal Court Jurisdiction

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are the materials in Employers Mutual Casualty Company v. Branch (D. Ariz.):

1 Complaint

1-2 Coconino County Court Materials

15 EMCC MSJ

22 Navajo MSJ

25 EMCC Reply

28 Navajo Reply

32 DCT Order

Materials in Pacheco v. Geisen [Kewa Pueblo; ICRA Habeas]

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are the materials in Pacheco v. Geisen (D.N.M.):

1 Habeas Petition

15 Amended Petition

20 answer

22 Petitioner’s Response

25 Reply

28 Petitioner’s Surreply

30 Magistrate Order on 20

31 Order to Show Cause

34 Petitioner’s Response to 31

45 Order to Show Cause

47 Magistrate Report

48 DCT Order

Grocery Store Prevails in Defense of Tort Suit Arising on Navajo Lands

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are the materials in Morris v. Giant Four Corners Inc. (D.N.M.):

1 Notice of Removal

1-1 State Court Compleint

38 Giant Motion to Dismiss or Stay Pending Exhaustion

41 Response

44 Reply in Support of 38

64 DCT Order Denying 38

79 DCT Order on Negligent Entrustment

90 Giant Motion for Judgment on Pleadings

91 Giant Motion to Compel Election of Remedies or Dismiss

98 Response to 91

99 Response to 90

101 Reply in Support of 90

103 Reply in Support of 91

112 DCT Order

Ninth Circuit Decision in Knighton v. Cedarville Rancheria

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the opinion in Knighton v. Cedarville Rancheria of Northern Paiute Indians.

Briefs here.

Wilson v. Horton’s Towing Cert Petition [Montana; Exhaustion; Civil Forfeiture]

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here:

Cert Petition

Questions presented:

1. Does an Indian Tribe have authority under the second exception of Montana v. United States, 450 U.S. 544 (1981), to forfeit automobiles owned by non Native Americans for violation of tribal drug laws while on tribal land?

2. If so, does the Tribe have authority to seize a motor vehicle off reservation if it has probable cause to believe that the automobile previously contained illegal drugs while on tribal lands?

Lower court materials here.

Eighth Circuit Decides Stanko v. Oglala Sioux Tribe

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the opinion.

Briefs here.