Cahto Tribe of the Laytonville Rancheria v. Dale Risling et al

Filing 53

ORDER (TENTATIVE RULING) signed by Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr on 5/20/2011 on Cross Motions for Summary Judgment on the only issues that are not submitted for decision; for the reasons stated in this order, the BIA's decision to order the re-enrollment of the Sloan/Hecker Family is not contrary to law.(Waggoner, D)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

CAHTO TRIBE OF THE LAYTONVILLE
RANCHERIA,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21

v.
AMY DUTSCHKE, Regional Director
for the Pacific Region, Bureau
of Indian Affairs, United States
Department of the Interior,
KEN SALAZAR, Secretary of the
Interior, United States
Department of the Interior,
LARRY ECHO HAWK, Assistant
Secretary – Indian Affairs,
United States Department of the
Interior,
Defendants.*
________________________________
Cahto

22

Tribe

(the

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

“Tribe”)

2:10-cv-01306-GEB-GGH
TENTATIVE RULING ON CROSS
MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
ON THE ONLY ISSUES THAT ARE
NOT SUBMITTED FOR DECISION

seeks

an

order

under

the

23

Administrative Procedures Act (“APA”) vacating and reversing the Bureau

24

of Indian Affairs’ (“BIA”) administrative decision that ordered the

25

Tribe to re-enroll 22 members of the Sloan/Hecker family who were dis-

26

enrolled by the Tribe in 1995.

27
28

*

The caption has been amended to substitute Amy Dutschke for
Dale Risling under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25(d) following the
appointment of Amy Dutschke as Regional Director for the Pacific Region.
1

1

A.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

2

The BIA’s decision may be vacated and reversed under the APA

3

only if it is “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or

4

otherwise not in accordance with law.” 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A).

5

B.

6

WHETHER THE BIA HAD AUTHORITY TO REVIEW THE TRIBE’S DIS-ENROLLMENT
DECISION

7

The Tribe argues the BIA’s re-enrollment decision is unlawful

8

because

9

Association and Ordinance Number 1, do not authorize the BIA to review

10

its

governing

documents,

consisting

of

its

Articles

of

the Tribe’s dis-enrollment decision. (Pl.’s Mot. 25:10-13.)

11

The BIA counters that the tribal governing documents do

12

authorize its review of the Tribe’s dis-enrollment decision that was

13

appealed;

14

documents as support for its position. Specifically, the BIA argues that

15

sections

16

“unquestionably provide for an appeal to the [BIA] for determinations by

17

the Tribe as to eligibility or ineligibility for tribal membership.”

18

(Defs.’ Reply 4:25; Defs.’ Mot. 13:21-14:1.)

19

the

6

BIA

relies

through

Section

6

8

of

on

of

provisions

Ordinance

Ordinance

in

Number

Number

1

the

1,

Tribe’s

“read

provides:

governing

together”,

“[a]

person

20

disapproved for enrollment” may appeal to the BIA; section 7 states the

21

membership roll is to “be prepared with a certification as to its

22

correctness by the . . . [BIA][;]” and section 8 states the membership

23

roll

24

including deleting of names of persons on the roll who were placed there

25

erroneously,

26

(Administrative Record (“AR”) 282, 285.) These sections read in their

27

context provide the BIA authority to review the subject dis-enrollment

28

decision.

is

to

be

kept

current

fraudulently,

by

“making

[or]

2

corrections

otherwise

as

necessary,

incorrectly[.]”

1

C. WHETHER BIA’S REVERSAL OF THE TRIBE’S DECISION WAS CONTRARY TO LAW

2

The Tribe also argues its dis-enrollment decision is based on

3

its interpretation of its own tribal governing documents, and therefore,

4

is an interpretation based on its tribal sovereign authority to which

5

the BIA must give deference. (Pl.’s Mot. 27:3-6.) “[U]nder the doctrines

6

of tribal sovereignty and self-determination, a tribe has the right

7

initially to interpret its own governing documents in resolving internal

8

disputes, and the [BIA] must give deference to a tribe’s reasonable

9

interpretation of its own laws.” Ransom v. Babbitt, 69 F. Supp. 2d 141,

10

150 (D.D.C. 1999) (internal quotation marks omitted).

11

The BIA counters the Tribe’s dis-enrollment decision is not

12

based on the Tribe’s interpretation of its governing documents, but

13

rather the Tribe’s misinterpretation of federal law prescribed in 25

14

U.S.C. § 1300i et. seq., the Hoopa Yurok Settlement Act, and the Initial

15

Yurok Voter List prepared by the BIA in 1979, prior to the enactment of

16

the Hoopa Yurok Settlement Act. (Defs.’ Mot. 23:9-10.)

17

The Tribe based its decision on Article III(A)(3) of the

18

Tribe’s Articles of Association which prescribes: “[p]ersons who meet

19

the requirements [of membership] . . . , shall be ineligible for

20

membership if they have been affiliated with any other tribe, group or

21

band to the extent of (a) being included on a formal membership roll, .

22

. . [or] (c) having been named as a distributee or dependent of a

23

distributee in a reservation distribution plan.” (AR 286-87.) “In its

24

September 19, 1995 decision, the [Tribe] found that the [Sloan/Heckers]

25

‘have been affiliated with other tribes by being included on formal

26

membership rolls and/or . . . have been a distributee of a reservation

27

distribution plan, namely the Hoopa/Yurok settlement’ and thus were

28

ineligible for membership under Article III.A.3 of the Tribe’s Articles
3

1

of Association.” (Pl.’s SUF ¶ 7; Defs.’ SUF ¶ 2.) The Tribe relied on

2

the “‘Initial Yurok Voter List’ dated June 21, 1979" for its conclusion

3

that the Sloan/Heckers “were . . . on the membership rolls of the Yurok

4

Tribe[.]” (Pl.’s Mot. 33:1; AR 223.)

5

The

Tribe

argues

the

Hoopa

Yurok

Settlement

Act

is

a

6

“distribution of Reservation assets” within the meaning of “reservation

7

distribution plan” in its Articles of Association. (Pl.’s Mot. 32:5.)

8
9

However, what the Tribe characterizes as a distribution of
reservation

assets

is

a

legal

settlement

with

the

United

States

10

government, which federal law has not defined as a distribution of

11

reservation assets as the Tribe argues. As explained in the Senate

12

Report on the Hoopa Yurok Settlement Act, the Act is intended to

13

“resolve long standing litigation between the United States, the Hoop

14

Valley Tribe and a large number of individual Indians[.]" S. Rep. No.

15

100-564, at 1 (1988).

16

25 U.S.C. § 1300i-3 prescribes that the Hoopa Yurok Settlement

17

Act establish the Hoopa-Yurok Settlement Fund, which is composed of

18

“monies derived from the joint reservation which are held in trust” (25

19

U.S.C. § 1300i (b)(1)) and a federal government monetary settlement

20

contribution of $10,000,000 (25 U.S.C. § 1300i-4(e)). The Senate Report

21

explains “[t]he Fund, with the Federal share and with any earned income,

22

is to be available to make the payments authorized by [25 U.S.C. §

23

1300i-5(d)].” S. Rep. No. 100-564, at 20.

24

25 U.S.C. § 1300i-5(d) provides a lump sum payment option;

25

“[t]he option to elect a lump sum payment under this section is provided

26

solely as a mechanism to resolve the complex litigation[.]” 25 U.S.C. §

27

1300i-5(d)(2).

28
4

1

Therefore, the Sloan/Hecker family members who received the

2

lump sum payment option under 25 U.S.C. § 1300i-5(d) did not receive a

3

distribution of reservation assets.

4

Further, contrary to the Tribe’s argument, the Initial Yurok

5

Voter List does not constitute a membership roll since the federal

6

register comments state: “the voters’ list clearly is not a membership

7

roll for the Yurok Tribe and inclusion on or exclusion from the list is

8

not determinative of whether a person will be eligible for membership in

9

the Yurok Tribe.” Organization of the Yurok Tribe-Voting for Interim

10

Tribal Governing Committee; Qualification and Procedures for Preparing

11

a Voting List, 44 Fed. Reg. 24536 (Apr. 25, 1979) (to be codified at 25

12

CFR pt. 55).

13

For the stated reasons, the BIA’s decision to order the

14

re-enrollment of the Sloan/Hecker Family is not contrary to law.

15

Dated:

May 20, 2011

16
17
18

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.
United States District Judge

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5