Sears v. Gila River Indian Community et al

Filing 20

ORDER that Defendant Gila Rivers' motion to dismiss (Doc. 12 ) is GRANTED. The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter a judgment of dismissal without prejudice. Signed by Senior Judge Roslyn O Silver on 9/24/2013.(KMG)

Download PDF
1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 12 ORDER Plaintiff, 10 11 No. CV-12-02203-PHX-ROS Kristan L. Sears, v. Gila River Indian Community et al., Defendants. 13 14 15 Before the Court is a motion to dismiss by Defendant Gila River Indian 16 Community (“Gila River”). (Doc. 12). For the reasons explained below, this motion will 17 be granted. BACKGROUND 18 19 Pro se plaintiff Kristan Sears was employed by the Gila River Indian Community 20 Department of Rehabilitation and Supervision (“DRS”) until April 2009. (Doc. 11). The 21 nature of the dispute is not entirely clear from the record, but it appears Sears believes 22 she was wrongfully terminated and was not given a grievance hearing.1 (Id.) Sears alleges 23 what seem to be three types of claims: hostile work environment, wrongful termination, 24 and due process violations. (Id.) Her hostile work environment claim relates to her 25 alleged poor treatment when she reported the health and safety violations; her wrongful 26 termination and due process claims stem from DRS allegedly not providing Sears with a 27 1 28 Sears claims she brought unspecified “health and safety violations” to the attention of her employer and DRS allegedly proceeded to treat her “in a manner designed to make [Sears] quit in retaliation for her actions.” (Id.) 1 hearing prior to her termination. (Id.) Though her original complaint references the 2 American Indians Torts Liability Act of 1998, the American Indian Equal Justice Act of 3 1998, the Indian Civil Rights Act, and the Indian Self-Determination and Education 4 Assistance Act, it is unclear under precisely which statutes Sears seeks relief. (Doc. 11). 5 Sears brings her claims against Gila River and other individuals, including the Governor, 6 former Governor, Director, and Deputy Director of DRS, all of whom are employed by 7 and, according to Sears, acted as “agents for” Gila River. Defendant Gila River moves to 8 dismiss the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction based on the doctrines of 9 tribal sovereign immunity and tribal self-governance. (Doc. 12). 10 11 ANALYSIS I. Legal Standard for Motion to Dismiss 12 Rule 12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides for a motion to 13 dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. A Rule 12(b)(1) motion may be either 14 facial, where the inquiry is confined to the allegations in the complaint, or factual, where 15 the court is permitted to look beyond the complaint to extrinsic evidence. Wolfe v. 16 Strankman, 392 F.3d 358, 362 (9th Cir. 2004). On a facial challenge, all material 17 allegations in the complaint are assumed true, and the question for the court is whether 18 the lack of federal jurisdiction appears from the face of the pleading itself. See Wolfe, 392 19 F.3d at 362; Thornhill Publishing Co. v. General Telephone Electronics, 594 F.2d 730, 20 733 (9th Cir. 1979). When a defendant makes a factual challenge “by presenting 21 affidavits or other evidence properly brought before the court, the party opposing the 22 motion must furnish affidavits or other evidence necessary to satisfy its burden of 23 establishing subject-matter jurisdiction.” Safe Air For Everyone v. Meyer, 373 F.3d 1035, 24 1039 (9th Cir. 2004). The court need not presume the truthfulness of the plaintiff’s 25 allegations under a factual attack. White v. Lee, 227 F.3d 1214, 1242 (9th Cir. 2000). 26 However, in the absence of a full-fledged evidentiary hearing, disputes in the facts 27 pertinent to subject-matter are viewed in the light most favorable to the opposing party. 28 Dreier v. United States, 106 F.3d 844, 847 (9th Cir. 1996). The disputed facts related to -2- 1 subject-matter jurisdiction should be treated in the same way as one would adjudicate a 2 motion for summary judgment. Id. 3 II. Tribal Sovereign Immunity 4 Gila River seeks dismissal of the complaint on grounds that tribal sovereign 5 immunity divests the Court of subject matter jurisdiction over all of Sears’ claims against 6 it. (Doc. 12). The Court agrees with Gila River. 7 Tribal sovereign immunity limits a federal court's subject matter jurisdiction over 8 actions brought against an Indian tribe. Alvarado v. Table Mt. Rancheria, 509 F.3d 1008, 9 1015–16 (9th Cir. 2007). The Supreme Court has held that as a matter of federal law, an 10 Indian tribe is subject to suit only where Congress has authorized the suit or the tribe has 11 expressly waived its sovereign immunity. See Kiowa Tribe of Okla. v. Mfg. Techs., 523 12 U.S. 751, 754 (1998). There is a strong presumption against waiver of tribal sovereign 13 immunity: waiver of immunity by a tribe may not be implied and must be expressed 14 unequivocally. Kescoli v. Babbitt, 101 F.3d 1304, 1310 (9th Cir. 1996). Similarly, 15 congressional abrogation of sovereign immunity may not be implied and must be 16 “unequivocally expressed” in “explicit legislation.” Krystal Energy Co. v. Navajo Nation, 17 357 F.3d 1055, 1056 (9th Cir. 2004). Tribal sovereign immunity extends to the economic 18 as well as the governmental activities of the tribe, so long as the entity “functions as an 19 arm of the tribe.” Allen v. Gold Country Casino, 464 F.3d 1044, 1046 (9th Cir. 2006). 20 Based on the evidence presented, the Court finds that it lacks jurisdiction to hear 21 Sears’ claims due to tribal sovereign immunity. Gila River points to the Federal 22 Registers’ listing of Indian tribes as evidence that it is a federally-recognized Indian 23 Tribe. (Doc. 12, citing 77 Fed. Reg. 47,868, 47,873 (Aug. 10, 2012)). Inclusion of a tribe 24 on the Federal Register list of recognized tribes is generally sufficient to establish 25 entitlement to sovereign immunity. Ingrassia v. Chicken Ranch Bingo and Casino, 676 26 F.Supp.2d 953, 957 (E.D. Cal. 2009) (citing Cherokee Nation v. Babbitt, 117 F.3d 1489, 27 1499 (D.C. Cir. 1997)). Plaintiff does not contest that Gila River is a federally-recognized 28 Indian Tribe entitled to tribal sovereign immunity or that DRS is its arm; rather she seems -3- 1 to claim that Gila River’s immunity has been abrogated by Congress. However, none of 2 the congressional statutes to which Sears cites abrogates tribal sovereign immunity. 3 First, the Court has not found, and Sears has not provided, any evidence that the 4 American Indians Torts Liability Act of 1998 and the American Indian Equal Justice Act 5 of 1998 have been enacted into law. Second, Sears cites to two additional statutes, which 6 have been enacted into law but do not abrogate Gila River’s immunity in this case. The 7 Indian Civil Rights Act (“ICRA”) allows for suits against tribal entities only in the 8 narrow instance of habeas relief. In other words, ICRA abrogates tribal sovereign 9 immunity only for claims brought by prisoners seeking post-conviction relief. “Nothing 10 on the face of Title I of the ICRA purports to subject tribes to the jurisdiction of the 11 federal courts in civil actions for [other types of] relief.” Santa Clara Pueblo v. Martinez, 12 436 U.S. 49, 59 (1997). Since Sears is not a prisoner seeking post-conviction relief, 13 ICRA’s abrogation of immunity for habeas claims does not apply in this case. 14 Sears also cites to the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act 15 (“ISDEAA”); yet, nothing in this statute abrogates tribal immunity. The ISDEAA 16 provides legal authority for tribal governments to contract with the federal government 17 and for the federal government to assume authority for providing governmental services, 18 including law enforcement and policing within tribal communities. 25 U.S.C. § 450. 19 Tribal employees who engage in activities in furtherance of such contracts are deemed 20 federal employees and are therefore covered by the Federal Torts Claim Act (“FTCA”). 21 25 U.S.C. § 450f(c). Importantly, FTCA actions may only be brought against the United 22 States; for individuals with tort claims against a tribal contractor, the FTCA is the 23 exclusive remedy, and FTCA actions may not be brought against Indian tribes, tribal 24 officials or employees. 25 C.F.R. §§ 900.201, 900.208. 25 Therefore, since Gila River is a federally-recognized Indian Tribe of which DRS is 26 an arm, and Sears points to no evidence that Congress has abrogated the immunity 27 entitled to Gila River and DRS as such, Sears’ claims must be dismissed against Gila 28 River. -4- 1 A. Individual Defendant Immunity 2 Gila River maintains that the DRS employees named in this suit are also protected 3 by tribal sovereign immunity. (Doc. 12 at 12). The Court agrees with Gila River. 4 It is well settled that tribal sovereign immunity “also extends to tribal officials 5 when acting in their official capacity and within their scope of authority.” United States v. 6 State of Or., 657 F.2d 1009, 1013 (9th Cir. 1981) (citing Davis v. Littell, 398 F.2d 83, 84- 7 85 (9th Cir. 1968); White Mountain Apache Indian Tribe v. Shelley, 107 Ariz. 4 (1971)). 8 Further, “[t]he principles that motivate the immunizing of tribal officials from suit— 9 protecting an Indian tribe's treasury and preventing a plaintiff from bypassing tribal 10 immunity merely by naming a tribal official—apply just as much to tribal employees 11 when they are sued in their official capacity.” Cook v. AVI Casino Enterprises, Inc., 548 12 F.3d 718, 727 (9th Cir. 2008). Though it is not entirely clear from the briefing, it appears 13 that Sears is suing the individual defendants solely in their official capacities for actions 14 done in the scope of their authority or employment. Each individual defendant is an 15 official of Gila River or an employee of DRS, and Sears has named each defendant with 16 their official titles in her complaint. (Doc. 11). Additionally, Sears maintains that “all 17 persons employed in the various departments and organizations are essentially acting as 18 ‘Agents’ [sic] for the Gila River Indian Community” and “[b]ecause the defendants were 19 acting as the Community’s agents and under the ‘Color of Law,’ [sic] … they are subject 20 to suit…” (Id.). Accordingly, Gila River’s tribal sovereign immunity also extends to the 21 individual defendants named in Sears’ complaint. 22 III. Tribal Self-Governance 23 Gila River also argues that Sears’ claims should be dismissed based on tribal self- 24 governance principles—that is, the laws under which Sears’ claims are brought do not 25 apply to Gila River because it is a separate sovereign. (Doc. 12). Again, the Court agrees 26 with Gila River. 27 The U.S. Supreme Court has held that, “as separate sovereigns pre-existing the 28 Constitution, tribes have historically been regarded as unconstrained by those -5- 1 constitutional provisions framed specifically as limitations on federal or state authority.” 2 Santa Clara Pueblo, 436 U.S. at 57. More specifically, “as the powers of the local self- 3 government enjoyed by the [Indian Nations] existed prior to the constitution, they are not 4 operated upon by the Fifth Amendment, which … had for its sole object to control the 5 powers conferred by the constitution on the national government.” Talton v. Mayes, 163 6 U.S. 376, 384 (1896). Accordingly, since Gila River’s actions are not regulated by the 7 U.S. Constitution, Sears’ constitutional claims must be dismissed. A similar analysis applies to Sears’ employment claims regarding wrongful termination and hostile work environment. Sears points to no federal law specifically addressing Indian tribes’ liability for these claims. Yet, Title VII, which creates a hostile work environment cause of action, explicitly exempts Indian tribes from its coverage. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(b)(1); see also E.E.O.C. v. Karuk Tribe Housing Authority, 260 F.3d 1071, 1082 (9th Cir. 2001). If the Complaint were read to assert a different type of federal employment claim, it would likely still be barred on self-governance grounds. For example, the ADEA is silent as to whether it applies to Indian tribes. However, the Ninth Circuit has held that where a law is silent with respect to Indian tribes, the law does not apply to Indian tribes if: 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 (1) the law touches exclusive rights of self-governance in purely intramural matters (2) the application of the law to the tribe would abrogate rights guaranteed by Indian treaties; or (3) there is proof by legislative history or some other means that Congress intended the law not to apply to Indians on their reservations. 19 Karuk, 260 F.3d at 1078–79. In Karuk, The Ninth Circuit then held that employment 20 practices of the tribe were purely intramural matters touching on the tribe’s exclusive 21 rights of self-governance, and thus the ADEA does not apply to the tribe. Id. at 1081. 22 According to the court, tribal self-governance includes a tribe’s ability to make 23 employment decisions without the interference from other sovereigns. Id. 24 Therefore, because the claims Sears raises relate to employment decisions that are 25 intramural matters touching Gila River’s exclusive rights of self-governance, any federal 26 law that is silent on the issue must be construed not to apply to Gila River. Further, since 27 the Court lacks jurisdiction for any of Sears claims brought under federal law, any state 28 law claims she brings may also be dismissed. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); see also -6- 1 Kruger v. Pac. Benefits Grp. Nw., LLC., 228 F. Supp. 2d 1143, 1149 (D. Or. 2001) 2 (“[T]he district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over pendent state 3 law claims if the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original 4 jurisdiction.”). 5 Accordingly, 6 IT IS ORDERED that Defendant Gila Rivers’ motion to dismiss (Doc. 12) is 7 GRANTED. The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter a judgment of dismissal without 8 prejudice. 9 Dated this 24th day of September, 2013. 10 11 12 13 14 15 ______________________________________ Roslyn O. Silver Senior United States District Judge 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -7-

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?