tribal election

Federal Court Remands Cal. Valley Miwok Membership Issues to BIA

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are the materials in California Valley Miwok Tribe v. Jewell (D. D.C.):

56 Federal Motion for Summary J

83 Intervenor CVMT Response to US Motion

86 Plaintiff CVMT Reply

87 DCT Order Denying Motion for Reconsideration

88 DCT Order on Cross-Motions for Summary J

An excerpt:

For the reasons discussed below, this Court concludes that the Assistant Secretary erred when he assumed that the Tribe’s membership is limited to five individuals and further assumed that the Tribe is governed by a duly constituted tribal council, thereby ignoring multiple administrative and court decisions that express concern about the nature of the Tribe’s governance. Therefore, the Court will grant Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment in so far as it seeks remand of the August 2011 Decision and deny the Federal Defendants’ cross motion for summary judgment.

Prior posts are here, here, and here.

Update in California Valley Miwok Tribe v. Salazar — Updated 9/27/13

Matthew L.M. Fletcher2 Comments

The court has issued an opinion in California Valley Miwok Tribe v. Salazar (D. D.C.):

DCT Order

From the order:

This matter is before the Court on Intervenor-Defendant’s motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1), and for failure to state a claim, Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). See Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief (“Mot.”), Dkt. No. 58, at 2 (Mar. 26, 2012). Intervenor-Defendant also argues that it is a required party but that its joinder is precluded by sovereign immunity, id. at 21; for clarity the Court will construe this argument as a motion to join a required party under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 19(a)(2). Because the Court agrees that Intervenor-Defendant is a required party but not that its joinder is precluded by sovereign immunity, the motion to join a required party is GRANTED. Because the Court finds Intervenor-Defendant’s remaining arguments to be largely — but not entirely — without merit, the motion to dismiss is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.

Materials are here.

Update — additional materials:

2013 09 20 Motion for Reconsideration

2013 09 20 Motion for Stay Pending Reconsideration

DCT Order Denying Stay

Materials in California Valley Miwok Tribe v. Salazar (Tribal Dispute)

Matthew L.M. Fletcher3 Comments

Here:

CVMT Motion to Dismiss

Federal Cross-Motion for Summary J

Plaintiffs Opposition

2013 07 05 CONFORMED Motion to Expedite

Opposition to Motion to Expedite

2013 07 26 Reply in Support of Motion to Expedite

Previous posts on this dispute here and here.

Tribal Court Decides Interesting Election Challenge at Eastern Band Cherokee — It was Just a Typo

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the order:

In re Primary Election

Briefs:

Petition for a Writ of Mandamus

Response to Petition for Writ of Mandamus

Update on Eastern Band Cherokee Election Dispute

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the response to the petition:

Response to Petition for Writ of Mandamus

The petition is here.

Interesting Election Challenge at Eastern Band Cherokee

Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here is the petition for a writ of mandamus in the Cherokee Supreme Court:

Petition for a Writ of Mandamus 3262013

The dispute centers around a new election code, of which the parties disagree as to when the next election for Principal Chief will be — in 2013 or 2015.

Cherokee Nation Redistricting Challenge — Tribal Court Materials — UPDATED

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are the materials in Anglen v. Cherokee Nation Council:

Federal Court Declines to Dismiss Tribal Election Dispute Question

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are the materials in Eastern Shawnee Tribe v. Douthitt (N.D. Okla.):

DCT Order Denying CIO Motion to Dismiss

CIO Motion to Dismiss

EST Response

CIO Reply

An excerpt from the opinion:

Now before the Court is Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss and Brief in Support (Dkt. # 16). Defendants argue that the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this case because plaintiff is asking the Court to resolve an internal tribal dispute. They also assert that they have not waived their sovereign immunity from suit and that plaintiff’s claims should be dismissed. Plaintiff responds that it is asking the Court to determine whether the Court of Indian Offenses for the Eastern Shawnee Tribe of Oklahoma had jurisdiction to decide an election dispute, and this is a federal question that can be decided by this Court. They also argue that defendants are not shielded from suit by the doctrine of sovereign immunity.

More Materials in Comanche Election Dispute

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here:

1 – Petition 05.24.12

2 – Request for Expedited Hearing 05.29.12

3 – Notice of Supplement to Petition 06.06.12

4 – Interim Order 06.07.12

10 – Petitioners Response to Motion to Dismiss 06.14.12

11 – Motion for Show Cause Hearing to Determine Coffey and Wa

12 – Notice of Hearing for June 22, 2012 at 10 am 06.15.12

16 – Judgment of Dismissal 06.26.12

Additional Tribal Court Materials in the Comanche Election Dispute

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here:

transcript of proceedings 6-22-12

Comanche Motion to Dismiss

Comanche Mtn to Vacate Orders

Exhibits to the Comanche Nation’s Motion to Dismiss filed

Prior materials here.