Western District of Washington – Page 17

Federal Court Orders Tribal Exhaustion in Challenge to Lummi Seizure

March 30, 2016March 30, 2016Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are the materials in Wilson v. Doe (W.D. Wash.):

57 Horton’s Towing Motion for Summary J

61 Wilson Opposition to 57

62 Horton’s Towing Reply

64 Horton’s Towing Response to 60 & 61

65 US Brief

66 Wilson Reply

67 DCT Order

An excerpt:

On October 22, 2014, Plaintiff Curtiss Wilson was stopped by a Lummi Tribe police officer while driving on the Lummi Reservation after drinking at the Lummi Casino. (Dkt. No. 4-1 at 2.) Lummi Tribal Police Officer Grant Austick stopped Plaintiff, searched his 1999 Dodge Ram Pickup, and developed probable cause that Plaintiff was committing a DUI. (Dkt. No. 4-1 at 2.) Officer Austick then called the Washington State Patrol and Plaintiff was arrested. (Id. at 3.) Plaintiff’s truck was towed by Defendant Horton’s Towing and impounded at the direction of the Washington State Trooper. (Id.)

The following day, Lummi Tribal Police Officer Brandon Gates presented a “Notice of Seizure and Intent to Institute Forfeiture” (“Notice of Seizure”) from the Lummi Tribal Court of the Lummi Tribe to Horton’s Towing. (Dkt. No. 4-1 at 3-4, 9.) The seizure and intent to institute forfeiture of Plaintiff’s vehicle was based on violations of the Lummi Nation Code [3] of Laws (“LNCL”) 5.09A.110(d)(2) (National Indian Law Library 2016) (Possession of Marijuana over 1 ounce), and authorized by LNCL 5.09B.040(5)(A) (National Indian Law Library 2016) (Civil forfeiture section addressing Property Subject to Forfeiture, specifically motor vehicles used, or intended for use, to facilitate the possession of illegal substances.) (Dkt. No. 4-1 at 9.) Horton’s Towing released the truck to the Lummi Tribe. (Id. at 3-4).

Plaintiff brought suit in Whatcom County Superior Court and the case was removed. (Dkt. No. 1.) Plaintiff originally brought claims for outrage, conversion, and relief under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1988. (Dkt. No. 4-1 at 7-8.) All of Plaintiff’s claims, save conversion, have been previously dismissed either voluntarily or by Court order. (See Dkt. Nos. 25, 35, and 53.) Plaintiff’s conversion claim against both Horton’s and the United States is based on Horton’s release of the vehicle to the Lummi Tribe pursuant to the order served by Gates. (Dkt. No. 4-1 at 6.)

Defendant Horton’s moves for summary judgment, claiming the release of the vehicle was pursuant to the Notice of Seizure, and [4] therefore with lawful justification. (Dkt. No. 57.) Plaintiff argues in response that the Notice of Seizure is invalid or not enforceable off the reservation. (Dkt. No. 61.) The United States moves for summary judgment based on, inter alia, Plaintiff’s failure to exhaust his administrative remedies. (Dkt. No. 65.) In response, Plaintiff regurgitates failed arguments from previous briefing, relying on an overturned, out-of-Circuit case and “maintaining” a line of reasoning with respect to Brandon Gates and the scope of employment that this Court has already ruled against. (Dkt. No. 66.)

Contempt Citation in Squaxin Island Indian Tribe v. Gold Coast Oyster LLC

February 18, 2016Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are the materials in United States v. Washington (W.D. Wash.) (subproceeding 89-3-10):

20 Squaxin Petn for Order to Show Cause

27 Response

32 Reply

2016-02-16 Order

Earlier proceedings in this matter are here.

Federal Court Refuses Jurisdiction over BIA Letter Notifying Plaintiff of Trespass on an Allotment

February 15, 2016February 15, 2016Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are the materials in Comenout v. Joseph (W.D. Wash.):

Snoqualmie Tribe Brings Civil Rights Action against City of Snoqualmie

December 10, 2015Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the complaint in Snoqualmie Indian Tribe v. City of Snoqualmie (W.D. Wash.):

Complaint

An excerpt:

The Snoqualmie Indian Tribe, as parens patriae on behalf of its Tribal members acting through the Tribal member governing body of the Snoqualmie Casino, brings this legal action to stop the City of Snoqualmie from engaging in intentional race discrimination against the Tribe. The City is the only provider of sewer utility services to the Tribe’s Snoqualmie Casino, and has been providing such services under an agreement entered into in 2004. In October 2015, the City informed the Tribe that, despite the Tribe’s continuous payment for such services, the City intends to terminate providing sewer services to the Casino by no later than November 2016. The City is also actively blocking the Tribe’s efforts to obtain sewer services without relying exclusively on the City. Without sewer services, the Casino will be forced to close indefinitely, threatening the Tribe’s ability to offer core governmental programs and services to its Tribal members, jeopardizing business relationships upon which the Tribe depends, and risking the jobs of 1200 employees. The Tribe seeks declaratory and injunctive relief to protect its right to the full and equal benefit of the law, and to enjoin Defendants from terminating sewer services in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1981 and RCW 35.67.310, and from interfering with business expectancies.