tribal court exhaustion doctrine – Page 8

Window Rock School District v. Reeves Cert Stage Materials

December 27, 2017December 27, 2017Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here:

Cert Petition

Cert Opp Brief

Lower court materials here.

Norton v. Ute Indian Tribe Cert Petition

December 18, 2017January 31, 2018Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here:

Cert Petition

Question presented:

In light of the clear precedent of Nevada v. Hicks, 533 U.S. 353 (2001), which holds that state law enforcement officers are not subject to suit in a tribal court for claims arising out of the performance of their duties on tribal lands, did the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals err in requiring Petitioners to exhaust their remedies in the Ute Tribal Court in order to determine whether that Court has jurisdiction to hear a trespass claim arising out of Petitioners’ performance of their official duties that the Ute Indian Tribe brought against them in the Ute Tribal Court?

Lower court materials here.

UPDATE:

Brief in Opposition

NYTs Profile on Cherokee Suit against Opioid Manufacturers and Distributors

December 17, 2017December 17, 2017Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here is “In Opioid Battle, Cherokee Want Their Day in Tribal Court.”

Federal Court Dismisses Foreclosure Action against Tulalip Tribes & Tribal Member

December 14, 2017December 14, 2017Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are the materials in Wilmington Savings Fund Society v. Fryberg (W.D. Wash.):

15 Tulalip motion to dismiss

21 Response

22 Reply

28 DCT order

Federal Court Dismisses Habeas Petition by Kickapoo Member for Failure to Exhaust Tribal Remedies

December 4, 2017Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are the materials in Darnell v. Merchant (D. Kan.):

An excerpt:

Petitioner Bobbie Darnell, a member of the Kickapoo Tribe in Kansas (the “Tribe”), filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 25 U.S.C. § 1303 seeking relief from her tribal court convictions and sentence. Petitioner requests that the Court issue a writ of habeas corpus commanding her immediate release from jail in Brown County, Kansas, overturning her convictions in Kickapoo criminal cases numbers CRM016-11 and CRM016-23, and staying all further tribal court action against her (Doc. 1). In addition, Petitioner has filed a motion for release on her own recognizance (Doc. 25). As explained below, the Court denies the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus because Petitioner has not exhausted her tribal remedies. The Court further denies Petitioner’s motion for release on her own recognizance as moot.

Split Utah SCT Affirms Tribal Immunity, Adopts Tribal Court Exhaustion Doctrine

November 9, 2017November 10, 2017Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here is the opinion in Harvey v. Ute Indian Tribe.

UPDATE (11/10/17) Briefs:

Appellant’s Brief

Appellant’s Reply Brief

Appellee’s Brief-LaRose

Appellee’s Brief-Newfield

Appellee’s Brief-Ute Indian Tribe

Joinder in Brief

Response to Supplemental Authority-Appellee 1

Response to Supplemental Authority-Appellee 2

Supplemental Authority-Appellant

An excerpt:

The oil and gas industry is a major economic force in the Uintah Basin. This industry relies, to some extent, on access to the Uintah and Ouray Reservation of the Ute Indian Tribe. The plaintiffs allege that, through its ability to restrict the industry’s access to tribal lands, the tribe has held hostage the economy of the non-Indian population.

Ryan Harvey, a plaintiff and part owner of the two corporations that are the other plaintiffs in this case, alleges that tribal officials from the Ute Tribe attempted to extort him by threatening to shut down his businesses if he did not acquiesce to their demands, despite the fact that his businesses do not operate directly on tribal land. After his refusal to make certain payments, the tribal officials sent a letter to the oil and gas companies operating on tribal land informing them that they would be subject to sanctions if they used any of Harvey’s businesses. The tribal official’s letter dried up a large portion of Harvey’s business, and Harvey brought claims against the tribe, the tribal officials, various companies owned by the tribal officials, oil and gas companies, and other private companies he alleges are complicit in this extortionate behavior. Most of the defendants filed motions to dismiss on various grounds and the district court dismissed Harvey’s claims against all of the defendants. On direct appeal, Harvey seeks to set aside the dismissals. We affirm the dismissal of the Ute Tribe under sovereign immunity and the dismissal of Newfield, LaRose Construction, and D. Ray C. Enterprises for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. But we vacate the dismissal of the remaining defendants and remand for further proceedings consistent with the tribal exhaustion doctrine.

~~If anyone has the briefs in this fascinating case, please send them along.~~

Federal Court Rejects Effort to Enforce Settlement Agreement in Tribal Court

November 6, 2017Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are the materials in Enerplus Resources (USA) Corporation v. Wilkinson (D.N.D.):

78 Motion for Summary J

84 Response

85 Reply

91 DCT Order

An excerpt:

Given the forum selection clauses in the Settlement Agreement, the ORRI Assignment, and the Division Orders, the Tribal Court clearly lacks jurisdiction over the case. The record before this Court clearly establishes that every party to the dispute agreed to the forum selection clauses at issue. Thus, Enerplus is entitled to a declaratory judgment that the forum selection clauses at issue preclude the Tribal Court from exercising jurisdiction over any dispute arising from those documents, and preclude Wilkinson from asserting in Tribal Court any claims arising from, and related to those documents.

CA8 materials here.