tribal sovereign immunity – Page 57

1. Was Petitioner denied due process of law when the Indian Tribal Chairman Armenta filed a false claim in Bankruptcy as part of a long pattern and campaign of harassment against Petitioner and the Bankruptcy Court refused to impose sanctions, simply because she believed she could not find grounds for sanctions because much of the pattern of the ultra vires conduct of Chairman Armenta did not occur in her court?

2. Has the recent decisions of this court in Bay Mills Indian Community, 572 U.S. ___, 134 S.Ct. 2024 and the Ninth Circuit court of appeals recent case in Maxwell v. County of San Diego, 708 F.3d 1075 (9th Cir. 2013) expanded the liability of tribal officers engaging in unlawful and abusive acts while purporting to do so on behalf of the Indian tribe and who then seek to invoke the tribes sovereign immunity to evade liability?

3. Even though the sanction motion had to be brought on its face, against the tribe (who waived tribal immunity in the bankruptcy case), the court was authorized in its inherent jurisdiction to impose sanctions against the improper actions of chairman Armenta even though claimed to have been done on behalf of the tribe.

Ninth Circuit materials:

Ninth Circuit Allows Suit by “Advantage Gamblers” against Tribal Casino Officials under Maxwell Precedent

June 30, 2015Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here is the opinion in Pistor v. Garcia:

12-17095

From the court’s syllabus:

The panel affirmed the district court’s denial of a motion to dismiss an action brought against tribal officers who were sued in their individual capacities for an assertedly unconstitutional detention and seizure of property that took place at a casino owned and operated by a tribe on tribal land. The district court held that even if the tribal defendants were entitled to tribal immunity, it was inappropriate to dismiss the claims against the defendants for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The district court went on to hold, however, that if the tribal defendants’ Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) motion to dismiss was construed as a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, the court would conclude that plaintiffs had sufficiently stated a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim against the tribal defendants in their individual capacities. The district court therefore denied defendants’ motion to dismiss the action.

The panel held that sovereign immunity is a quasi-jurisdictional issue that, if invoked at the Rule 12(b)(1) stage, must be addressed and decided. Accordingly, the panel held that the district court erred in concluding that it would be inappropriate to dismiss the claims against the defendants at the 12(b)(1) stage. The panel nevertheless affirmed the district court’s denial of defendants’ motion to dismiss the action. The panel held that the tribal defendants were not entitled to tribal sovereign immunity because they were sued in their individual rather than their official capacities, as any recovery will run against the individual tribal defendants, rather than the tribe.

The panel held that it did not have jurisdiction to decide whether plaintiffs successfully stated a claim against the defendants under § 1983. The panel held that whether the tribal defendants were acting under state or tribal law did not matter for purposes of the tribal sovereign immunity analysis, although it will matter for purposes of deciding whether plaintiffs can succeed in their § 1983 claim.

Briefs and lower court materials here.

California Appellate Court Issues Slightly Modified Opinion in Cosentino v. Fuller

June 23, 2015Matthew L.M. Fletcher2 Comments

Here:

Amended Opinion

Motion for rehearing here.

Panel materials here.

FMLA Claim against Morongo Casino Dismissed on Immunity Grounds

June 22, 2015Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are the materials in Fuller v. Morongo Casino (C.D. Cal.):

14-1 Motion to Dismiss

17 Opposition

28 DCT Order

California Tribes Seek Rehearing Or Depublication Of Official Immunity Ruling

June 18, 2015Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here are the materials:

Petition for Rehearing

Cosentino – Application and Amicus Brief

Here’s a snippet from the petition:

The Opinion effectively holds that the Tribe’s Gaming Commission lacks authority to revoke a gaming license unless it cites to reasons for its actions that are expressly and affirmatively authorized to do so by codified law. That is incorrect as a matter of law. The Opinion also wrongly asserts that tribal sovereign immunity can be overcome by alleging that a tribal official acted in excess of his or her authority and that, upon such allegation, tribal official immunity is subject to an evidentiary weighing and balancing that involves shifting burdens of production and persuasion, similar to California’s law of qualified immunity. Tribal official immunity, however, is an absolute privilege, like the absolute immunity enjoyed by the Justices of this Court.

We previously covered this case here.

Federal Court Requires Financial Planning Company to Exhaust Tribal Remedies

June 17, 2015Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are the materials in United Planners Financial Services of America LLP v. Sac and Fox Nation (W.D. Okla.):

13 Housing Authority Motion to Dismiss

17 Sac & Fox Nation Motion to Dismiss

18 Response to 13

19 Housing Authority Reply

20 Response to 17

21 Sac & Fox Nation Reply

22 DCT Order

The complaint is here.

Tribal court materials are here.

Prisoner Section 1983 Suit against Tribal Police and Judge Dismissed

June 16, 2015Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the order in Tramper v. Smith (W.D. N.C.):

2 DCT Order

An excerpt:

Plaintiff’s Complaint will be dismissed for failure to state a claim. Plaintiff purports to bring a civil action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the tribal prosecutor and the tribal judge who participated in Plaintiff’s criminal action in tribal court for the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians. Actions brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 must allege deprivation of constitutional rights under color of state law, as opposed to under color of tribal law. See R.J. Williams Co. v. Fort Belknap Hous. Auth., 719 F.2d 979, 982 (9th Cir. 1983). Here, Plaintiff does not allege that Defendants were acting under color of state law; indeed, Plaintiff’s claim appears to arise from his criminal conviction in tribal court pursuant to tribal law. Thus, for this reason alone, Plaintiff’s action is subject to dismissal.

In addition, to the extent that Plaintiff purports to sue Defendants in their official capacities, Defendants enjoy sovereign immunity from suit. “Indian tribes are neither states, nor part of the federal government, nor subdivisions of either.” N.L.R.B. v. Pueblo of San Juan, 276 F.3d 1186, 1192 (10th Cir. 2002) (en banc). Unless Congress authorizes the suit or sovereign immunity has been waived, Indian tribes, tribal entities, and persons acting on tribes’ behalf in an official capacity enjoy sovereign immunity against suit. Kiowa Tribe of Okla. v. Mfg. Techs., Inc., 523 U.S. 751, 754 (1998) (tribe); Allen v. Gold Country Casino, 464 F.3d 1044, 1046 (9th Cir. 2006) (tribal entity), Hardin v. White Mountain Apache Tribe, 779 F.2d 476, 479-80 (9th Cir.1985) (tribal officials).