Here are the new materials in Lomeli v. Kelly (Nooksack Tribal Ct.):
Second Emergency Motion for Temporary Restraining Order
Defendants’ Response in Opposition to Second Emer Motion for TRO
Reply in Support of Second Emergency Motion for TRO
Tribal Court Order Denying Second TRO Motion re Election
Tribal Court Order Denying Second TRO Re General Special Meetings
News coverage here. Previous post on the recent tribal court litigation. And an update on tribal court filings:
Second Declaration of Gabriel S. Galanda
And a federal complaint alleging FOIA violations by the Bureau of Indian Affairs — St. Germain v. Dept. of Interior (W.D. Wash.):
St Germain v Interior Complaint
Here are the materials available in Lomeli v. Kelly (Nooksack Tribal Court):
Order Denying Motion for Preliminary Injunction
Defendants Response Brief in Opposition to Plaintiffs Emergency Motion for T
Here is the opinion in Cahto Tribe of the Laytonville Rancheria v. Dutschke.
The court’s syllabus:
The panel reversed the district court’s judgment affirming the federal Bureau of Indian Affairs’ decision in favor of federal defendants in an action brought by the Cahto Tribe of the Laytonville Rancheria, seeking to set aside the Bureau of Indian Affairs’ decision to direct the Tribe to place the names of certain disenrolled individuals back on its membership rolls.
The panel held that the Tribe’s governing documents did not provide for an appeal to the Bureau of Indian Affairs of the Tribe’s disenrollment action.
Briefs are here.
Here is the complaint in Harrison v. Robinson Rancheria Band of Pomo Indians (N.D. Cal.):
An excerpt:
1. This action is brought by Alan and Christina Harrison, Robert Quitiquit, Karen Ramos, Inez Sands, and Reuben Want (“Plaintiffs”). Plaintiffs are disenrolled members of the Robinson Rancheria (“Defendant” or “Tribe”).
2. Plaintiffs seek relief for Defendant’s: 1) violation of their rights to due process, and 2) breach of contract.3. Plaintiffs are parties to a housing program designed, funded and supervised by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (“HUD”).4. Plaintiffs entered in Mutual Housing Occupancy Agreements (“MHOA”) whereby an Indian Housing Authority would administer a home lease with an option to buy. Initially, HUD contracted with the Northern Circle Indian Housing Authority (NCIHA”), a non-Robinson Rancheria entity.5. Defendant, a federally recognized Indian Tribe, assumed the rights and responsibilities of the Indian Housing Authority and the MHOAs with Plaintiffs.6. Defendant breached the MHOAs repeatedly since assuming the contractual responsibility to administer the agreements in compliance with its terms, which include applicable HUD regulations.7. Defendants then initiated a multi-year plan to unlawfully evict Plaintiffs in contravention of the MHOA terms, which employ landlord tenant law under federal, state or local law.8. Defendants denied Plaintiffs’ due process as required by the Robinson Rancheria Tribal Court and initiated a federal case asking the court to rally federal marshals to enforce the unlawful eviction issued by the corrupt tribal court. When the federal court insisted upon reviewing the MHOAs and sending the parties to mediation, the Defendant immediately withdrew their complaint.9. Plaintiffs have lost their homes, seen their possessions thrown into large garbage bins and had their pets killed and discarded.
10. Now virtually homeless and having received no assistance from HUD or the Bureau of Indian Affairs or Congress, the Plaintiffs herein file this action.
Here are the materials in Aguayo v. Salazar (S.D. Cal.):
Here is the complaint:
We left it in December with the court enjoining Interior from removing the Alto plaintiffs from the San Pasqual Band rolls. Here are additional materials leading to last week’s order denying the tribe’s motion to dissolve the order:
San Pasqual Motion to Dissolve PI
Alto Response to Motion to Dismiss
San Pasqual Reply in Support of Motion to Dismiss
San Pasqual Reply in Support of Motion to Dissolve
DCT Order Denying Motion to Dissolve
And now pending responses:
Here are the Ninth Circuit briefs in Cahto Tribe of the Laytonville Rancheria v. Dutschke:
lower court materials here.
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.