tribal official immunity – Page 6

Federal Court Dismisses Title VI Claim against Chickasaw Housing

June 1, 2015Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here are the materials in Sanders v. Anoatubby (W.D. Okla.):

An excerpt:

Having carefully reviewed plaintiff’s Complaint, and presuming all of plaintiff’s factual allegations are true and construing them in the light most favorable to plaintiff, the Court finds that this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to hear plaintiff’s claims alleged in her Complaint. The Court specifically finds that jurisdiction is not vested in this Court based on plaintiff’s claim that defendants violated Title VI by not complying with the NAHASDA since the NAHASDA specifically exempts federally recognized tribes, such as the Chickasaw Nation and the tribally designated housing entities of those tribes such as the Chickasaw Nation Housing Administration, from Title VI. Further, the Court finds jurisdiction is not vested in this Court based on the Ex parte Young doctrine. Plaintiff specifically included defendants’ official titles in the caption of this lawsuit and alleges that defendants violated tribal policies. Other than conclusory statements that defendants were acting outside the scope of their official tribal capacity, plaintiff has failed to allege facts to support her claim that defendants were acting outside the scope of their tribal capacity or violating federal law. Therefore, the Court finds plaintiff’s Complaint against defendants Governor Bill Anoatubby, Wayne Scribner, Renee Sweet, Jackie Williams, and Terry Davis should be dismissed.

Suit for Injunctive Relief against Blackfeet Elected Officials over Utility MOA Dispute May Proceed

March 24, 2015May 1, 2015Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here are the materials in Town of Browning v. Sharp (D. Mont.):

71 12b1 Motion to Dismiss

73 12b6 Motion to Dismiss

75 12b7 Motion to Dismiss

95 Response to 12b1 Motion

96 response to 12b6 Motion

97 Response to 12b7 Motion

115 Reply in Support of 12b7 Motion

123 DCT Order

140 Magistrate Report

144 Objection to Magistrate Report

148 DCT Order

An excerpt:

Defendants and Plaintiff have not objected to Judge Johnston’s Findings and Recommendations on any other grounds. The Court finds no clear error in Judge Johnston’s Findings and Recommendations, and adopts them in full. A plaitiff may seek only prospective, injunctive relief under the doctrine of Ex Parte Young. Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. Vaughn, 509 F.3d 1092 (9th Cir.2007). Plaintiff seeks compensatory damages, exemplary damages, treble damages, and costs and attorney fees for counts 2–5. Plaintiff has failed to state a claim for which relief can be granted. Dismissal of counts 2–5 is appropriate pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Plaintiff seeks prospective, injunctive relief in count 1. Defendants have failed to demonstrate that Plaintiff has not stated a claim for which relief can be granted in count 1.

Ninth Circuit Affirms Dismissal of Challenge to Pala Disenrollments

March 17, 2015March 17, 2015Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here is the unpublished opinion in Allen v. Smith:

031.1 – Memorandum Disposition(83952089_1)

Excerpt:

This relief sought by the Appellants clearly operates against the Tribe. The
requested relief would prevent the Tribe from disenrolling the Appellants and
compel it to reinstate their membership and tribal benefits. Even the request for
compensatory and punitive damages (to be paid by the Appellees, not the Tribe)
would interfere with the Tribe’s public administration, because the monetary
damages are predicated on this court’s determination that the disenrollment of the Appellants was improper. Thus, we conclude that Appellants’ suit should be
construed as a suit against the Tribe itself.

Briefs and lower court materials here.

Wrongful Death Action against Pawnee Law Enforcement Allowed to Proceed

September 29, 2014Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are the materials in Estate of Gonzales ex rel. Gonzales v. Brown (N.D. Okla.):

32 Waters Motion to Dismiss

38 Opposition to Waters

40 Waters Reply

45 Miller Motion to Dismiss

54 Kanuho Motion to Dismiss

55 Leading Fox Motion to Dismiss

60 Opposition to Miller

64 Miller Reply

74 Opposition to Leading Fox

75 Opposition to Kanuho

76 Opposition to Kanuho

Federal Court Rules Tribal Officers Not Immune; Tort Claims May Proceed against Tribal Police (Black v. US)

July 29, 2014July 28, 2014Matthew L.M. Fletcher

This is the third ruling in Black v. United States (W.D. Wash.):

53 Joint Tribal Motion to Dismiss

69 Black Response

77 Joint Tribal Reply

83 DCT Order

Claims against the tribes are dismissed. The court dismissed Kitsap County here. And the US here.

Contract Breach Claim against Delaware Tribal Officials Survives in Pennsylvania Federal Court

November 26, 2013Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are the materials in Magyar v. Kennedy (E.D. Pa.):

11 Motion to Dismiss

12 Response

18 Reply

23 Motion to Dismiss Count 1

24 Response

31 DCT Order Denying Motion to Dismiss Count 1

An excerpt:

Thus, based upon an examination of the Second Amended Complaint and its Exhibits, we determine that Plaintiff has met his burden to convince us that Defendants acted beyond their official capacity and outside the scope of their authority when they terminated Plaintiff’s Agreements and failed to compensate Plaintiff for the services he rendered in June 2012. Accordingly, we conclude that the Second Amended Complaint alleges facts sufficient to persuade us that Defendants are not protected by sovereign immunity in connection with Count One of the Second Amended Complaint.