Robinson Rancheria of Pomo Indians v. Salazar et al

Filing 18

ORDER by Judge Samuel Conti granting 7 Motion to Dismiss; denying 12 Motion for Summary Judgment (sclc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/14/2013)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

9
ROBINSON RANCHERIA OF POMO
INDIANS,

11

Plaintiff,

12
v.
13
14
15
16
17

KENNETH SALAZAR, in his official
capacity as Secretary of the
United States Department of the
Interior; AMY DUTSCHKE, in her
official capacity as Pacific
Regional Director for the Bureau
of Indian Affairs,

18
Defendants.
19

) Case No. 12-cv-04885-SC
)
) ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS'
) MOTION TO DISMISS
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

20
21
22

I.

INTRODUCTION
This matter arises out of a request by the Robinson Rancheria

23

of Pomo Indians (the "Tribe") to the Bureau of Indian Affairs

24

("BIA") to call a "Secretarial election" to approve proposed

25

amendments to the Tribe's constitution.

26

Secretary of the United States Department of the Interior (the

27

"Secretary") and the Regional Director of BIA (collectively,

28

"Defendants") violated the Indian Reorganization Act ("IRA"), 25

The Tribe alleges that the

1

U.S.C. § 476, by failing to call and conduct an election within

2

ninety days of the receipt of the Tribe's request.

3

("Compl.") ¶¶ 17-18.

4

subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil

5

Procedure 12(b)(1).

6

fully briefed, ECF Nos. 9 ("Opp'n"), 10 ("Reply"), and appropriate

7

for determination without oral argument.

8

Tribe's claims are now moot and, therefore, GRANTS Defendants'

9

Motion to Dismiss.1

ECF No. 1

Defendants now move to dismiss for lack of

ECF No. 7 ("MTD").

The Motion to Dismiss is

The Court finds that the

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

10
11

II.

BACKGROUND
On April 3, 2012, the Robinson Rancheria Business Council (the

12
13

"Council"), the Tribe's governing body, adopted a resolution

14

requesting that the Secretary call and conduct an election among

15

the eligible voters of the Tribe to amend the Tribe's Constitution

16

(hereinafter, the "Resolution").

17

same day, the Council sent the Resolution to Troy Burdick, the

18

Superintendent of BIA.

19

the provisions of the constitution that the Council sought to amend

20

and provided the text of the proposed amendments.

Compl. ¶¶ 5, 10, Ex. A.

Id. ¶ 11, Ex. B.

On the

The Resolution identified

Id. Ex. A.

21

On June 11, 2012, Mr. Burdick sent a letter to the Tribe's

22

chairperson, stating that, although the proposed amendments were in

23

compliance with federal law and acceptable to BIA, the Secretarial

24

election process was "stopped" because the Council's request did

25

not comply with 25 C.F.R. Part 81.

26

claimed that the Council's request, as set forth in the Resolution,

Id. Ex. C.

Specifically, BIA

27
28

1

Also pending before the Court is the Tribe's motion for summary
judgment. ECF No. 12. That motion is DENIED as moot.

2

1

was improper because: (1) a copy of the text of the proposed

2

amendments was contained in the body of the Resolution rather than

3

on a separate piece of paper, and (2) the text of the proposed

4

amendments was numbered, rather than labeled alphabetically.

5

The letter concluded: "Upon receipt of the proposed amendments in

6

its proper format, [BIA] will continue the process to request an

7

authorization to conduct the Secretarial election."

Id.

Id.

8

On July 5, 2012, the Tribe's attorney sent a letter to Mr.

9

Burdick, stating that BIA's position was unfounded, the Tribe's

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

10

request was proper, and the Secretary had a mandatory duty to call

11

an election within ninety days of receipt of the Resolution.

12

Compl. Ex. E.

13

within seven business days or refused to call and conduct the

14

Tribe's election, the Tribe might bring an action in federal court.

15

Id.

16

The letter also stated that if BIA failed to respond

After receiving the July 5 letter, BIA apparently reversed

17

course on the Tribe's election request.

18

Burdick submitted the Tribe's request to the BIA Regional Director

19

for review and authorization to call a Secretarial election.

20

No. 8 ("Burdick Decl.") ¶ 6, Ex. E.

21

Regional Director authorized a Secretarial election on the Tribe's

22

proposed constitutional amendments.

23

13, 2012, BIA mailed an election notice packet to all of the

24

Tribe's eligible voters, informing them that an election on the

25

proposed amendments to the Tribe's constitution would be held on

26

February 9, 2013.

27
28

On July 17, 2012, Mr.

ECF

On August 15, 2012, BIA's

Id. ¶ 7, Ex. G.

On November

Id. ¶ 11, Ex. J.

On September 18, 2012, before the election notice was mailed,
the Tribe filed the instant action.

3

The Tribe's Complaint asserts

1

three causes of action: (1) violation of the IRA, (2) breach of

2

trust, and (3) violation of the Administrative Procedure Act

3

("APA").

4

predicated on Defendants' alleged failure to call and conduct a

5

tribal election.

6

the Court to enjoin Defendants from refusing to call and conduct

7

the requested election and to declare that Defendants violated the

8

IRA, the APA, and their trust obligations in failing to call and

9

conduct the election.

Compl. ¶¶ 16-30.

All three causes of action are

See id. ¶¶ 17-18, 23, 27-28.

The Tribe prays for

Id. at 8-9.

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

10
11

III. DISCUSSION
Defendants move to dismiss for lack of subject matter

12
13

jurisdiction on the grounds that: (1) Congress has not waived

14

sovereign immunity over the Tribe's claims; (2) the Tribe has

15

failed to exhaust its administrative remedies and, thus, cannot

16

state a claim under the APA; and (3) the Tribe's claims are moot.2

17

MTD at 3.

18

thus, need not and does not address Defendants' other arguments.

The Court finds that the Tribe's claims are moot and,

The instant action arose out of a controversy between BIA and

19
20

the Tribe concerning the format of Tribe's request for a

21

Secretarial election.

22

controversy was rendered moot when BIA decided to abandon its

23

objections to the format of the Tribe's request and the Secretary

24

authorized the Tribe's requested election.

25

E, G, J.

26

any judgment on the merits of the case would not affect the rights

27

2

28

See Compl. ¶¶ 17-18, 23, 27-28.

That

See Burdick Decl. Exs.

As a result of the decision to authorize the election,

Defendants also move dismiss for failure to state a claim under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) on the ground that the
Tribe cannot state a claim for breach of trust. MTD at 3.

4

1

of the parties.

2

jurisdiction over this matter.

3

Constitution, which provides that the exercise of judicial power

4

depends upon the existence of a case or controversy, U.S. Const.

5

art. III, § 2, bars federal courts from hearing moot cases.

6

Prot. Info. Ctr., Inc. v. Pac. Lumber Co., 257 F.3d 1071, 1076 (9th

7

Cir. 2001).

8
9

Accordingly, the Court cannot properly exercise
Article III of the United States

Envtl.

The Tribe concedes that its request for injunctive relief is
now moot, but argues that its request for declaratory relief

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

10

continues to present a live case or controversy.

Opp'n at 8.

11

Tribe reasons that Defendants violated § 476 by failing to call an

12

election within ninety days of their request and that the violation

13

was not rendered moot by Defendants' later actions.

14

further argues that "if the defendants can avoid even a declaration

15

that they have failed to meet the requirements of [§] 476, the time

16

limits set forth in [§] 476 are meaningless."

17

This line of argument is unavailing.

Id.

The

The Tribe

Id.

"When a plaintiff seeks

18

declaratory relief, as here, the test for mootness . . . is whether

19

the facts alleged, under all the circumstances, show that there is

20

a substantial controversy, between parties having adverse legal

21

interests, of sufficient immediacy and reality to warrant the

22

issuance of a declaratory judgment."

23

v. Lohn, 511 F.3d 960, 963 (9th Cir. 2007) (quotations omitted).

24

In other words, "the central question" is "whether changes in

25

circumstances . . . have forestalled any occasion for meaningful

26

relief."

27

that BIA violated § 476 would have no meaningful effect on the

28

rights of Tribe or the obligations of BIA.

Id. (quotations omitted).

5

Ctr. For Biological Diversity

Here, a judicial declaration

In fact, it would

1

amount to nothing more than an advisory opinion on § 476 and a slap

2

on the wrist for BIA.

3

finding of mootness does not render § 476 meaningless.

4

this Order precludes the Tribe or others similarly situated from

5

moving for injunctive relief to enforce the ninety-day time limit

6

set forth in § 476 if BIA refuses to call and conduct a Secretarial

7

election in the future.

Nothing in

The Tribe also implies that the "voluntary cessation"

8
9

Further, contrary to the Tribe's argument, a

exception to the mootness doctrine applies here, arguing that "[i]f

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

10

this Court does not declare that the defendants failed to meet

11

their statutory duty to timely call the election, BIA officials

12

will have no incentive to comply [with their duties] until tribes

13

file suit."

14

"th[e] voluntary cessation of allegedly illegal conduct does not

15

deprive the [court] of power to hear and determine the case, i.e.,

16

does not make the case moot, unless there is no reasonable

17

expectation that the wrong will be repeated."

18

of Cal. v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm'n, 100 F.3d 1451, 1460 (9th

19

Cir. 1996) (quotations omitted).

20

pointed to any evidence suggesting that the alleged wrong will be

21

repeated.

22

the Tribe's request less than two weeks after they were contacted

23

by the Tribe's lawyer and several weeks before the Tribe filed

24

suit.

25

this exception to apply, the defendant's voluntary cessation must

26

have arisen because of the litigation.").

27

indication that Defendants have a regular practice of denying

Opp'n at 9.

Under the voluntary cessation exception,

Pub. Utils. Comm'n

In this case, the Tribe has not

Defendants withdrew their objections to the format of

See id. ("[W]e have previously implied that, in order for

28

6

There is also no

1

requests for Secretarial elections based on the specific technical

2

objections described in the Complaint.

3
4
5

IV.

CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Court finds that this action is

6

moot and declines to exercise subject matter jurisdiction.

7

Defendants Kenneth Salazar and Amy Dutschke's Motion to Dismiss is

8

GRANTED.

9

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

10

IT IS SO ORDERED.

11
12
13

Dated: January 14, 2013
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

7