tribal court exhaustion doctrine – Page 9

We conclude that the district court erred in excusing the officers from exhaustion of tribal remedies with respect to the Tribe’s trespass claim, which alleges that the officers asserted superior authority over tribal lands and barred a tribal official from accessing the scene of the Murray shooting. Although we do not decide today whether the Tribal Court possesses jurisdiction over that claim, exhaustion is required unless tribal court jurisdiction is “automatically foreclosed.” Nat’l Farmers Union Ins. Cos. v. Crow Tribe of Indians, 471 U.S. 845, 855 (1985). The officers have not made this showing for the trespass claim because that claim at least arguably implicates the Tribe’s core sovereign rights to exclude and to self-govern. We further conclude that this claim is not barred by Hicks, which excused exhaustion based on a state’s overriding interest in investigating off-reservation offenses. Such an interest is not at play in this case. Murray was not suspected of committing any off-reservation violation, and the officers were not cross-deputized to enforce state law on the Reservation. However, we agree with the district court that the remaining Tribal Court claims are not subject to tribal jurisdiction and thus exhaustion was unnecessary.

Briefs:

Opening Brief

Utah Municipalities Answer Brief

Answer Brief

Reply Brief

Lower court materials in Norton v. Ute Indian Tribe (D. Utah):

23 Motion to Dismiss

32 Motion for Preliminary Injunction

33 Utah Municipalities Response to 23

34 State Response to 23

36 Norton Response to 23

37 Reply in Support of 23

38 Opposition to 32

39 Tribal Court Response to 32

40 Reply in Support of 32

57 DCT Order

Federal Court Denies TRO in Matter it Already Dismissed under the Tribal Exhaustion Doctrine

March 30, 2017Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are the new materials in Acres v. Blue Lake Rancheria (N.D. Cal.):

53 Motion for TRO

54 DCT Order Denying TRO

Prior posts here.

Federal Court Again Dismisses Challenge to Blue Lake Rancheria Tribal Court Jurisdiction

February 24, 2017February 27, 2017Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are the materials in Acres v. Blue Lake Rancheria (N.D. Cal.):

An excerpt:

Plaintiff James Acres seeks declaratory and injunctive relief against the Blue Lake Rancheria Tribe (“Tribe”), the Blue Lake Rancheria Tribal Court (“Tribal Court”) and its Chief Judge, Lester Marston, alleging that the Tribal Court has conducted itself in bad faith in asserting jurisdiction over him in an underlying contractual fraud case because Judge Marston refused to recuse himself from the case and misrepresented his relationship with the Tribe. Judge Marston has now recused himself from the Tribal Court case and appointed the Hon. James Lambden, a retired California Court of Appeal Justice with no prior connection to the Tribe, to preside over the matter. Given Judge Marston’s recusal and the appointment of a neutral judge, there is insufficient evidence of bad faith for the exception to apply. Acres does not meet any of the exceptions to the exhaustion requirement. He must exhaust his tribal remedies before bringing an action of this kind in federal court. The Tribe’s motion to dismiss is GRANTED.