Here is the opinion in Doonkeen v. Central Oklahoma American Indian Health Council (W.D. Okla.) — Doonkeen v Oklahoma City Indian Clinic DCT Order
Western District of Oklahoma
Nahno-Lopez v. Houser — Land Claim against Fort Sill Tribal Council
Here are the materials in this claim against the Fort Sill Apache Tribal Council in their individual capacities. The claims are by Kiowa and Comanche tribal members. The Western District of Oklahoma concluded that the claims may proceed against the tribal council in their individual capacities.
Federal Court Upholds Indian Country Crimes Act Conviction but Holds State Law Punishments Control
Here is the opinion in United States v. Langford (us-v-langford-dct-opinion), and its companion case, United States v. McHone (us-v-mchone-dct-opinion), out of the Western District of Oklahoma. The claimant, a non-Indian prosecuted under the Indian Country Crimes Act and the Assimilative Crimes Act, unsuccessfully argued that the federal court had no criminal jurisdiction over him (the underlying crime was cock-fighting, illegal under Oklahoma law).
However, the court also held that the magistrate judge erred in sentencing the defendant to a fine larger than that allowable under Oklahoma law.
Finally, the court dropped an interesting footnote in the Langford opinion:
In his brief, defendant asserts that pursuant to the Indian Civil Rights Act, he is entitled to all rights afforded to tribal members. The Indian Civil Rights Act, however, undertakes to single out the more important civil rights contained in the United States Constitution and to make those applicable to tribal members. See Martinez v. Santa Clara Pueblo, 540 F.2d 1039, 1042 (10th Cir.1976). Because defendant is not a tribal member, the Court finds the Indian Civil Rights Act is inapplicable in this case.
The citation is to the Martinez panel opinion, not the Supreme Court opinion. I wonder if other circuits have found the same.
Copyright Infringement and RICO Case against Cheyenne-Arapaho Tribes
The Western District of Oklahoma refused to dismiss a claim against the Cheyenne-Arapaho Tribes. The plaintiff, Southwest Hotel and Casino Corp., sought to voluntarily dismiss the claim without prejudice after C&A received a positive tribal court judgment and moved for summary judgment in the federal court action. Instead, the court will decide the C&A summary judgment motion.
flyingman-v-sw-hotel-and-casino-tribal-court-judgment
Oklahoma v. Native Wholesale Supply: Smokeshop Case Remanded to State Court
The Western District of Oklahoma granted the State of Oklahoma’s motion to remand an Indian taxation case back to state court after the tribally owned business removed the case to federal court. Ah, the well-pleaded complaint rule, not one of my favorites.
native-wholesale-supply-notice-of-removal
American General Finance v. Kent — Attempted Foreclosure of Trust Land
Still cannot foreclose on Indian trust land, according to the Western District of Oklahoma. Nor can banks use the doctrine of equitable subrogation to get at trust land.
american-general-finance-v-kent-dct-opinion
Comanche Nation v. US — Preliminary Injunction Granted in Fort Sill Case
Our earlier posting was here.
Now, the court has granted a preliminary injunction against further construction at Medicine Bluffs at Fort Sill.
Contract Claim Against Tonkawa Dismissed
The district court dismissed a simply contract claim, brought against the Tonkawa Tribe on the theory that IGRA offered a general cause of action.
Yancey v. Bonner — Complicated ICWA Case
Here is the opinion: dct-order-yancey-v-bonner
An excerpt:
Plaintiff is a member of the Muscogee (Creek) Indian Nation of Oklahoma. He is the father of Baby Boy L., who was born out of wedlock on October 4, 2002. In July 2002, the mother, who is not of Indian descent, decided to place the baby for adoption. Shortly after the birth, the Prospective Adoptive Parents took the child to Missouri, where he has since resided. On October 10, 2002, the mother relinquished her parental rights in Oklahoma County. On December 26, 2002, an adoption petition was filed in Cleveland County. The Plaintiff’s parental rights were terminated and he appealed to the Oklahoma Supreme Court, claiming that the trial court erred in holding that the Indian Child Welfare Act, 25 U.S.C. §§ 1901 et seq. (“the Act”), did not apply. The Supreme Court agreed, reversing the termination of the Plaintiff’s parental rights. The Prospective Adoptive Parents then filed a new application to terminate the Plaintiff’s parental rights. In February 2006, the trial court determined that the Act applied but that there was good cause to avoid the placement preferences of that Act, leaving the child in the custody of the Prospective Adoptive Parents. In January 2008, the Plaintiff filed a motion to transfer the case to Tribal Court. In February 2008, this motion was denied and the trial court terminated the Plaintiff’s parental rights, finding that his consent to the adoption was unnecessary. The Plaintiff appealed to the Oklahoma Supreme Court in March 2008 and filed the present complaint in May 2008. The adoption proceeding is still pending in Cleveland County District Court. The Plaintiff argues that the Defendant failed to follow the mandates of the Indian Child Welfare Act and is thereby depriving him of his rights under that statute and the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
And more:
Finally, the Plaintiff has a sufficient opportunity to raise his federal claims within the context of the state court proceeding. This prong requires the Plaintiff to demonstrate that state procedural law clearly bars him from raising these claims in the state proceeding. Pennzoil, 481 U.S. at 14; Moore, 442 U.S. at 432. The Plaintiff here has provided no evidence indicating state law bars him from litigating his claims under the Indian Child Welfare Act in state court. On the contrary, the Plaintiff has in fact raised such claims in the past in the state court system and received favorable results. (Dkt. No. 1.) Therefore, the Plaintiff has an adequate opportunity to raise his federal claims in the current state court proceedings.
Velie & Velie v. Onnam Default Judgment
The Western District of Oklahoma granted Velie & Velie’s motion for a default judgment in its attorney fees dispute with Onnam Entertainment and True Native American Gaming (previous post with materials).
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.