Newtok Village Leadership Dispute Complaint Filed in Federal Court [Updated with Default Judgment]

Here is the complaint captioned Newtok Village v. Patrick (D. Alaska):

1 Complaint

Update (2/25/21):

14 Motion for Default Judgment

16 DCT Order Granting Default

Federal Court Orders Tribal Court Exhaustion in Caddo Leadership Dispute

Here are the new materials in Caddo Nation of Oklahoma v. Court of Indian Offenses for the Anadarko Agengy (W.D. Okla.):

18 CIO Motion to Dismiss

21 Edwards Response

22 CIO Reply

24 DCT Order

We posted on an earlier stage of this matter, with the complaint here, and the federal court’s denial of a motion for a TRO here.

Alaska SCT Refuses to Take Jurisdiction over Internal Tribal Governance Matter

Here is the opinion in Healy Lake Village v. Mt. McKinley Bank. An excerot:

Members of Healy Lake Village Tribe who claim to constitute the newly elected tribal council brought suit in superior court against Mt. McKinley Bank after the Bank refused to change the signatory authority on the Tribe’s accounts to reflect the alleged leadership change. A second group of tribal members, who also claim to represent the Tribe based on a competing election, was granted intervention in order to contest the superior court’s jurisdiction. The superior court determined that the fundamental issue in the case was the determination of the legitimate governing body of the Tribe, which was an internal self-governance matter within the Tribe’s retained inherent sovereignty. The superior court dismissed the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, and the group that brought the initial action now appeals. Because determining the real party in interest would have required the superior court to decide matters solely within the Tribe’s retained inherent sovereignty, we affirm the superior court’s dismissal of the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Update in Caddo Leadership Dispute; Federal Court Denies TRO

Here are the new materials in Caddo Nation of Oklahoma v. Court of Indian Offenses for the Anadarko Agency (W.D. Okla.):

10 Plaintiff Supplemental Brief

13 Defendant Response

17 DCT Order Denying TRO

Earlier materials are here.

Caddo Nation Leadership Dispute in Federal Court

Here are the materials in Caddo Nation of Oklahoma v. Court of Indian Offenses for the Anadarko Agency (W.D. Okla.):

1 Complaint

1-7 Petn for Emergency TRO

1-8 CIO Emergency TRO

2 Plaintiff Motion for TRO

8 Plaintiff Supplemental Brief

9 DCT Order

Federal Court Dismisses Tribal Leadership-Banishment Dispute at United Auburn Indian Community

Here are the materials in Tavares v. Whitehouse (E.D. Cal.):

1 Habeas Petition

13 Motion to Dismiss

17 Opposition

22 Reply

24 DCT Order

Additional Materials in California Valley Miwok Tribe v. Jewell

Here:

2014 01 07 CVMT Background Memo (FINAL)

2014 01 06 Exs 1-9 CVMT Memo

2014 01 06 Exhs 10-23 CVMT Memo 

We posted most recently on this case here and here.

Federal Court Remands Cal. Valley Miwok Membership Issues to BIA

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

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)

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.