Andrew Allen et al v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA et al
Filing
49
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT by Judge William Alsup re 30 Motion for Summary Judgment.(whalc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/27/2017)
1
2
3
4
5
6
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9
ANDREW ALLEN, et al.,
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
12
No. C 16-04403 WHA
Plaintiffs,
ORDER DENYING
PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND
GRANTING DEFENDANTS’
MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT
v.
13
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al.,
14
Defendants.
/
15
16
INTRODUCTION
17
In this Indian tribal rights action, plaintiffs move for summary judgment. Federal
18
defendants oppose and cross-move for summary judgment. For the reasons herein, federal
19
defendants’ motion is GRANTED and plaintiffs’ motion is DENIED.
20
21
STATEMENT
Plaintiffs are a group of Indians seeking to organize as the Ukiah Valley Pomo Indian
22
Tribe on the Pinoleville Rancheria where they reside. The Rancheria is already home to the
23
Pinoleville Pomo Nation (previously known as the Pinoleville Indian Community and the
24
Pinoleville Band of Pomo Indians), a federally recognized tribe, members of which also reside
25
on the Rancheria. Though the two groups were previously a single, unified tribe, our plaintiffs
26
have since relinquished their membership in the Pomo Nation AR 567, 1042–44, 1134–1499).
27
1.
28
The United States established the Pinoleville Rancheria in 1911 pursuant to the Acts of
HISTORY OF THE PINOLEVILLE RANCHERIA.
June 21, 1906 (34 Stat. 325, 333) and April 30, 1908 (35 Stat. 70, 76). In connection with the
1
purchase, the Office of Indian Affairs compiled a list of 157 Indians residing on the
2
Reservation, which list included ancestors of both our plaintiffs and Indians currently enrolled
3
in the Pomo Nation who live on or near the reservation today (AR 1042–43, 2047–49, 2708).
4
In 1935, the Indians living on the Pinoleville Rancheria voted to accept the terms of the
5
Indian Reorganization Act. Plaintiffs are among the descendants of individuals who appeared
6
on the eligible voters list assembled in connection with the adoption of the IRA. Despite
7
accepting the terms of the IRA, however, the Indians on the Pinoleville Rancheria were unable
8
to successfully obtain the Secretary of the Interior’s approval of a constitution as was required
9
for formal tribal organization, and in 1966 the tribe was terminated pursuant to the Rancheria
Act of August 18, 1958 (AR 1043; 72 Stat. 619).
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
Upon termination, the Secretary of the Interior distributed parcels of the reservation to
12
67 Indians living on the Pinoleville Rancheria at that time, which distributees included our
13
plaintiffs (and their ancestors), among others. The distributees thereafter organized themselves
14
into a nonprofit freeholders organization who held and managed the property until 1983 (AR
15
1043).
16
In 1983, the Pinoleville Rancheria’s federal recognition was restored by the stipulated
17
judgment in Tillie Hardwick v. United States, No C 79-1710 SW. Thereafter, the Pinoleville
18
Indians again attempted to organize as tribe, but became embroiled in internal tribal disputes.
19
In 2003, after twenty years of attempting to organize and with the assistance of the BIA, the
20
Pinoleville Indians were finally able to resolve their internal disputes and agree to a tribal
21
membership list, which included 307 individuals who were descendants of those listed on
22
enrollment lists created in 1934 and 1937. Based on this list, sixteen of the eighteen plaintiffs
23
were eligible to then vote on tribal leadership. Ten participated in the vote. Several months
24
later, using the same membership list, a majority of the Pomo Indians ratified a constitution,
25
which was approved by the Secretary of the Interior (AR 1044, 2259–65, 761–63, 773).
26
The constitution provided two ways in which an Indian could qualify for tribal
27
citizenship. He could become a citizen either by showing that he was a descendant of a
28
Captains or Councilmen of the Pinoleville Indians, or by naturalization based upon close social
2
1
ties to the Pinoleville Reservation. To receive tribal citizenship based upon social ties, an
2
Indian had to apply for citizenship, and the tribal government had to then make a factual
3
determination regarding eligibility (AR 762–63).
4
Neither party has submitted evidence showing whether any plaintiffs meet the first
5
definition, and no plaintiffs have applied for naturalization (see ibid.). At the November 16
6
hearing in this action, plaintiffs represented that at least some of them had been disenrolled
7
from the tribe following the 2003 election. The record, however, does not reflect any formal
8
disenrollments (AR 665–66). Instead, it shows that in 2015, in connection with this lawsuit,
9
plaintiffs submitted declarations withdrawing from the Pomo Nation (AR 699–736).1
2.
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
THE PRESENT TRIBAL RECOGNITION DISPUTE.
The current suit is a continuation of plaintiffs’ earlier quest for tribal reorganization,
12
which began in 2008. See Allen v. United States, 871 F. Supp. 2d 982, 985 (N.D. Cal. 2012).
13
At that time, a group consisting of some of the plaintiffs in this action as well as other
14
individuals living on the Pinoleville Rancheria petitioned the Secretary of the Interior to allow
15
members of the alleged — though admittedly not federally recognized — Indian tribe to vote on
16
a proposed constitution and organize a tribal government.
17
That request was eventually denied, and in October 2011, some of the current plaintiffs
18
filed suit against the United States challenging the decision not to call a tribal election. Id. at
19
986–87. The United States moved to dismiss the suit for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction,
20
which motion was granted. Id. at 984, 994. The plaintiffs in that action then appealed, and
21
while their appeal was pending entered into a Settlement Agreement with the United States
22
which permitted them to reapply to the Bureau of Indian Affairs for tribal recognition, and
23
detailed what documentation the Regional Director of the BIA would review in making a
24
determination as to whether the applicants met the eligibility criteria to organize under the
25
Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 (AR 52).
26
27
28
1
This order acknowledges an apparent tension between the 2003 membership list, which included our
plaintiffs, and the constitutional requirements for membership, which might not automatically include them.
Rather, under the constitution certain Indians who were listed as members in 2003 would have to apply for
membership in the Pomo Nation, despite their earlier inclusion on the membership list.
3
1
In accordance with the Settlement Agreement, the BIA published notifications in local
2
papers soliciting comments on the tribal recognition request (AR 224, 231). It received eleven
3
public comments including comments from the Pinoleville Pomo Nation, the federally
4
recognized tribe that resides on and near the Pinoleville Rancheria (AR 371). As required by
5
the Settlement Agreement, plaintiffs submitted various documents including comments to the
6
public notices, and a members list (id. at 159). After reviewing the submitted documents, the
7
Regional Director found that plaintiffs did not meet the definition of “tribe” as they were only a
8
subset of the Indians who resided on the Pinoleville Rancheria, and for whom it was set aside,
9
and therefore could not organize under the IRA (id. at 1045).
Plaintiffs, eighteen Indians who live on the Pinoleville Rancheria, now contend that the
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
Regional Director relied on criteria not contained in the federal regulations or in the IRA,
12
rendering the decision arbitrary, capricious and contrary to the law (Compl. at 2). They further
13
contend that the Regional Director’s decision is not supported by substantial evidence.
14
Accordingly, plaintiffs move for summary judgment, seeking an order declaring that the
15
Regional Director’s decision violates the IRA, federal regulations, and the settlement
16
agreement, and directing the Regional Director to call a tribal election. They allege the
17
following five claims: (1) violation of the Fifth Amendment; (2) violations of the IRA; (3)
18
violation of 25 C.F.R. § 81.1(w)(2); (4) violation of Administrative Procedure Act; and (5)
19
breach of trust (ibid.).
20
Federal defendants, the United States of America, the Secretary of the Department of the
21
Interior, Ryan Zinke, and the Regional Director of the Pacific Regional Office of the Bureau of
22
Indian Affairs, Amy Dutschke, oppose plaintiffs’ motion and cross-move for summary
23
judgment. Federal defendants assert that the Settlement Agreement limited plaintiffs’ cause of
24
action to challenging the Regional Director’s decision under the APA, and that the Regional
25
Director’s decision was supported by substantial evidence, and was not arbitrary, capricious, an
26
abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law, and must therefore be upheld (Dkt.
27
No. 32 at 1).
28
This order follows full briefing and oral argument.
4
1
ANALYSIS
2
Summary judgment is appropriate “if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute
3
as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” FRCP 56(a).
4
A dispute is genuine only if there is sufficient evidence for a reasonable fact-finder to find for
5
the non-moving party, and material only if the fact may affect the outcome of the case. Once
6
the moving party has made a threshold showing, the burden shifts to the nonmoving party to
7
prove the existence of a triable issue. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248–49
8
(1986).
9
THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT PRECLUDES NON-APA CLAIMS.
Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, plaintiffs agreed that “if they are dissatisfied with
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
1.
the Pacific Regional Director’s decision, they will only seek judicial review of that decision in
12
an action challenging that decision under the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 702,
13
704, 706(2)” (AR 61). Despite this limiting provision, plaintiffs now bring several non-APA
14
constitutional and statutory challenges to the Regional Director’s decision.
15
Both plaintiffs and federal defendants agree that the language of the Settlement
16
Agreement is clear and unambiguous. Plaintiffs, however, contend that “[t]he purpose of the
17
Settlement Agreement was not to limit the Indians’ causes of action” but rather was to
18
“establish the evidence and the process for submission of that evidence to the Director” and in
19
turn “to allow the Indians to seek judicial review of the Director’s Decision” based upon the
20
21
22
23
facts set forth in the Administrative record (Dkt. No. 37 at 3). They argue, in essence, that the
agreement that they would “only seek judicial review . . . under the Administrative Procedure
Act” was merely a way to establish the baseline for the evidence a reviewing court could
24
consider.
This interpretation, however, defies the unambiguous language of the Settlement
25
Agreement, and requires reading language into and out of the contract in order to arrive at the
26
result plaintiffs seek. Plaintiffs do not submit any extrinsic evidence to support their
27
interpretation, or otherwise argue that the contract is ambiguous and requires reformation.
Their interpretation must be rejected. The plain, unambiguous language of the
28
5
1
2
Settlement Agreement permits only APA claims. Accordingly, plaintiffs non-APA claims fail as
a matter of law.
3
4
2.
THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR’S DECISION WAS NOT ARBITRARY, CAPRICIOUS,
AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION OR CONTRARY TO LAW.
5
Plaintiffs next argue that the Regional Directors decision that plaintiffs were not a
6
“tribe” was arbitrary and capricious, and should therefore be overturned.
7
8
9
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
12
13
14
15
When a district court reviews an administrative agency's decision pursuant to the
Administrative Procedures Act, “summary judgment is an appropriate mechanism for deciding
the legal question of whether the agency could reasonably have found the facts as it did.”
Occidental Eng'g Co. v. I.N.S., 753 F.2d 766, 770 (9th Cir. 1985). The court must uphold an
agency decision unless it is found to be “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or
otherwise not in accordance with law,” or “without observance of procedure required by law.”
5 U.S.C. 706(2). An agency action should be overturned only when the agency has “relied on
factors which Congress has not intended it to consider, entirely failed to consider an important
16
aspect of the problem, offered an explanation for its decision that runs counter to the evidence
17
before the agency, or is so implausible that it could not be ascribed to a difference in view or the
18
product of agency expertise.” Gardner v. U.S. Bureau of Land Mgmt., 638 F.3d 1217, 1224
19
(9th Cir. 2011).
20
A.
The Regional Director Acted Within Her Discretion.
21
To be considered a “tribe” and have an election called, the Settlement Agreement
22
specifies that Allen must meet the criteria set forth in 25 U.S.C. 5129 (formerly 25 U.S.C. 479)
23
and 25 C.F.R. 81.1(w)(2), the statute and implementing regulation of the IRA, respectively.
24
Section 5129 defines tribe as “any Indian tribe, organized band, pueblo, or the Indians residing
25
on one reservation.” 25 C.F.R. 81.1(w)(2), in turn, defines tribe as “any group of Indians whose
26
members each have at least one-half degree of Indian blood for whom a reservation is
27
established and who each reside on that reservation.”
28
It is not in dispute that all plaintiffs possess one-half or more Indian blood and that all
6
1
2
3
live on the Pinoleville Indian Rancheria, which was created for them and their ancestors, among
others (Dkt. No. 30 at 9). The Regional Director, however, found that plaintiffs did not meet
the criteria for tribe because they were “only a subset” of the group for whom the Pinoleville
4
Rancheria was established, and on this basis denied plaintiffs’ request for tribal organization
5
(AR 1045). The decision stated that “The Department does not interpret the Indian
6
Reorganization Act as permitting splinter groups or factions of a tribe to set up independent
7
8
9
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
12
13
14
15
tribal government,” citing both the IRA and a 1995 decision concerning the Shaahook Group of
the Capitan Grande Band of Mission Indians (“Shahook”) for support (AR 1045).
Federal defendants argue that requiring a “tribe” to be comprised of more than a
“subset” of the Indian’s living on a particular reservation, and for whom the reservation was
established is the only reasonable interpretation of 25 C.F.R § 81.1(w)(2) and Section 5129 of
the IRA (see AR 1042). Quoting this Court’s earlier order in Allen v. United States, 871 F.
Supp. 2d 982, 992 (N.D. Cal. 2012), they note that “Section [5129] does not define ‘tribe’ as ‘ .
. . some Indians residing on one reservation. It defines ‘tribe’ as ‘the Indians residing on one
16
reservation. The inclusion of the definite article ‘the’ suggests that Congress intended the
17
provisions of the IRA to apply only to an organized group that constituted all or close to all of
18
‘the’ Indians residing on one reservation” (Dkt. No. 38 at 7). As that order observed, “[t]o find
19
otherwise would lead to the absurd result whereby any two Indians living on a reservation could
20
create their own tribe and organize under the IRA. This cannot possibly be what Congress
21
intended when it enacted the IRA.” Ibid.
22
Further supporting this interpretation, federal defendants observe that 25 C.F.R §
23
81.1(w)(2)’s use of the phrase “any group of Indians . . . for whom a reservation is established,”
24
to define tribe likewise suggests the entire group, as opposed to just a faction (Dkt. Nos. 32 at
25
19; 38 at 6). Indeed, it would be unusual to interpret the group “for whom a reservation is
26
established” to mean a subset or portion of the group, as plaintiffs urge.
27
28
This is especially so in our case given the history of the reservation. The Regional
Director took into account the lengthy organization period of the Pomo Nation, which included
7
1
2
3
years of infighting among the currently enrolled members and our plaintiffs (AR1042–43). This
ultimately resulted in the organization of a tribe that ten of our eighteen plaintiffs voted on, and
that six more were eligible to vote on (ibid.; AR 2250). Despite their ultimate dissatisfaction
4
with the leadership of the Pomo Nation, our plaintiffs had an opportunity to vote on the
5
leadership, several of them ran for leadership positions, and they participated in the ratification
6
of the Pomo Nation Constitution (ibid.). Furthermore, there is evidence in the record that they
7
8
9
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
12
13
14
15
16
have continued to receive benefits from the Pomo Nation, and participate in tribal services such
as the Pomo Nation’s vocational training program (see, e.g., AR 674–79, 774).
Though the Regional Director expressly declined to address whether plaintiffs’ proposed
tribe is “all or close to all” of the Indians residing on the Pinoleville Rancheria, she found that
plaintiffs fell outside of the definition of tribe set forth in the IRA by dint of being “only a
subset of the Indians for whom the Pinoleville Rancheria was set aside” (see AR 1045). This
finding was based upon a rational interpretation of the relevant statutes as applied to the record,
and was not arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion.
Plaintiffs’ arguments to the contrary are unavailing. Plaintiffs first argue that the
17
Regional Director’s interpretation has no basis in the IRA or federal regulations, and instead
18
amounts to a re-writing of Congress’s unambiguous statutory terms (Dkt. No. 30 at 15). As
19
plaintiffs see it, to meet the criteria set forth in the IRA and 25 C.F.R. 81.1(w)(2), they need
20
only possess half Indian blood or more, and reside on a reservation established for them (ibid.;
21
Dkt. No. 37 at 5).2
22
This, however, oversimplifies the definition by omitting critical language set forth above
23
— specifically, that to qualify as a “tribe” the individuals in question must be the “group of
24
Indians . . . for whom a reservation is established,” and must be “the Indians residing on one
25
26
27
28
2
Plaintiffs’ citation to St. Croix Band, 1 Op. Solicitor of Dept. of Interior Relating to Indian Affairs
1917-1974 at 1026, 1027 (Jan. 29, 1941), provides no support for plaintiffs’ position. That opinion held only
that a group of Indians who were “neither a recognized tribe or band nor a group of Indians resident upon a
reservation” were “not entitled to organize under the IRA.” The opinion did not address whether the members
seeking organization were only a subset of the Indians living on the Reservation, the critical issue here.
8
1
2
3
reservation.” As noted, when read as a whole the IRA indicates that a tribe must be comprised
of more than a subset of the Indians for whom a reservation was established. Indeed, adopting
plaintiffs’ approach would permit any two Indians living on a reservation to organize as a tribe,
4
so long as they were among the people for whom the reservation was set aside — or, as is the
5
case here, would permit any number of members to voluntarily disenroll from their tribe and
6
form a new tribe of defectors. To repeat, this would be an absurd result, and thus is not a
7
8
reasonable interpretation of the statute or regulation at issue.3
B.
9
Were There Ambiguities In The IRA, The Regional Director’s
Interpretation Should Be Accorded Deference.
Though plaintiffs argue that the language in the IRA and its implementing regulation is
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
unambiguous, they nevertheless contend that should the judge determine there are ambiguities,
12
they must be construed in favor of the Indians pursuant to the Indian canons of construction.
13
see Montana v. Blackfeet Tribe of Indians, 471 U.S. 759, 766 (1985).
14
15
16
17
18
19
This order finds no such ambiguities, and holds the Regional Director reasonably
applied the law for the reasons set forth above. Nevertheless, even if an ambiguity existed,
Blackfeet would not apply because it only applies when tribal interests are aligned against
United States’ government’ interests. Rancheria v. Jewell, 776 F.3d 706, 713 (9th Cir. 2015)
(citations and quotations omitted). Here, they are not. The Pomo Indian Tribe actively oppose
plaintiffs’ organization (see AR 477–78).
20
21
Instead, the Regional Director’s interpretation, which is final for the Department of the
Interior (see AR 1045), is entitled to deference under Skidmore v. Swift & Co., 323 U.S. 134
22
23
3
24
25
26
27
28
Plaintiffs further contend that by citing to the Shahook decision the Regional Director subverted the
Settlement Agreement by relying upon authority outside of the IRA (Br. at 10–11). Were Shahook the sole
authority relied upon by the Regional Director, plaintiffs would perhaps have a point. That is simply not the
case, however. The Regional director expressly relied upon the language of the IRA in arriving at her decision,
and cited to Shahook only one time, as further support for her interpretation (AR 1045). Moreover, Shahook,
while not factually identical to this action, provided support for the Regional Director’s decision. There, a
subset of an already recognized tribe sought separate federal recognition (AR 1048–49). The Assistant
Secretary of the BIA, however, found that the IRA did not permit “splinter groups or factions of a tribe to set up
independent governments” (id. at 1050). Though the circumstances there were different because the plaintiffs
were members of a different recognized tribe, it was not unreasonable for the Regional Director here to look to
that decision’s interpretation of tribe as not including factions or partial groups.
9
1
2
3
(1944). Because the Regional Director performed a thorough analysis of the record and
provided valid, logical reasoning in reaching her result, it is persuasive. See id. at 140;
Ortega-Cervantes v. Gonzales, 501 F.3d 1111, 1113 (9th Cir. 2007).
4
C.
5
6
The Regional Director’s Decision Is Supported By Substantial
Evidence.
Plaintiffs next argue that even assuming the Regional Director’s interpretation of the
7
IRA is reasonable, her decision is not supported by substantial evidence because the finding that
8
the petitioning Indians are only a subset of the Indians for whom the Reservation was originally
9
purchased “is factually incorrect” (Dkt. No. 37 at 7–8). They contend that the record shows the
reservation was purchased for homeless California Indians in general, and not for any specific
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
group of Indians (AR 478), and that “there are . . . no facts in the record to support the
12
Director’s finding that the Reservation was originally purchased for a larger group of Indians,
13
of which the plaintiff Indians are a subset” (Dkt. No. 37 at 8).
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
Plaintiffs’ interpretation rests entirely on a letter sent by the BIA Superintendent to a
teacher operating the BIA School on the Reservation in 1925, in which the Superintendent
stated that the land was “purchased by the Government for the sole purpose of providing homes
for homeless Indians” (AR 478). This letter, authored fourteen years after the reservation was
purchased, does not identify the “homeless Indians” for whom the land was allegedly
purchased, or indicate whether the reservation was set aside for any specific group. Plaintiffs
argue that based upon this letter, there is no identifiable group for whom the reservation was
purchased and therefore they cannot be a “subset” of any such group.
A review of the record, however, shows that the Rancheria was purchased for an
identifiable (and identified) group of Pomo Indians living near the reservation in 1911 (AR
24
1042–43). A 1911 letter to the Commissioner of Indian Affairs regarding the funds allocated to
25
purchase the reservation specifically identified 157 Indians of the Pinoleville Rancheria, for
26
whom the land was purchased (AR 2047, 2049). This account is further confirmed by a 1957
27
28
Congressional Report on the distribution of land and assets of certain Indian rancherias and
10
1
2
3
reservations, which gave a background analysis of the Pinoleville Rancheria and observed that
it was purchased in 1911 for a group of Pomo Indians living in the area, which was their
traditional homeland (AR 2080–81).
4
Indeed, plaintiffs are descendants of several of the Indians for whom the rancheria was
5
established in 1911 (a fact each of them notes in their declarations submitted to the BIA), which
6
is ultimately what gave them the right to settle on the reservation (see e.g., AR 2049, 1043,
7
8
9
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
12
13
14
15
1117, 1218, 1259). This, of course, supports the Regional Director’s conclusion that plaintiffs
are only a subset of the descendants of the Indians for whom the reservation was set aside.
Moreover, plaintiffs contend that the group for whom the reservation was set aside are
those Indians who were given parcels on the reservation at the time it was terminated in 1966.
Even if this were the group for whom the reservation was set aside (as opposed to those named
in the 1911 conveyance) this would still make plaintiffs only a subset of the group because
parcels were given both to the ancestors of plaintiffs and ancestors of enrolled Pomo Nation
Indians (see AR 1043). Therefore, even accepting plaintiffs’ interpretation of which Indians the
16
reservation was set aside for, they still make up only a subset of the group, and the Regional
17
Director’s conclusion is still valid.
18
The Regional Director’s conclusion meets the lenient “substantial evidence” standard. It
19
is supported by “relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a
20
conclusion.” See Howard ex rel. Wolff v. Barnhart, 341 F.3d 1006, 1011 (9th Cir. 2003)
21
(citations and quotations omitted). Despite their protest, plaintiffs have not presented any
22
evidence that would lead to the conclusion that they were more than a subset or portion of the
23
Indians for whom the reservation was set aside. Accordingly, the Regional Director’s decision
24
is sound and cannot be overturned on this basis.
25
D.
The Regional Director Has Not Imposed a One-Tribe-Only Rule.
26
Plaintiffs further argue that the Regional Director has imposed a new “only-one-tribe-
27
per-reservation” criteria by denying plaintiffs a tribal organization vote (Dkt. No. 37 at 9–10).
28
Not so. As illustrated above, the Regional Director drew her interpretation directly from the
11
1
2
3
IRA and its implementing regulation, and reasonably applied the IRA to the circumstances
before her. The fact that in this particular case her interpretation resulted in preserving a single
recognized tribe on the Pinoleville Rancheria does not, in itself, show that she created a one-
4
tribe-per-reservation rule. Indeed, nothing in the Regional Director’s interpretation would
5
prevent two tribes from residing on the same reservation if, for instance, both met the first
6
definition of tribe under the IRA — that is, if they were a historically recognized tribe.
7
8
9
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
12
13
14
15
Plaintiffs point to the Wind River Reservation, where two recognized tribes reside, as
proof that the one-tribe-per-reservation rule is contrary to the IRA. Those tribes, however, both
fall within the IRA’s first definition of tribe, which includes historically recognized tribes.
Shoshone Tribe of Indians of Wind River Reservation in Wyoming v. United States, 299 U.S.
476 (1937). The Regional Director’s decision in no way defies such an arrangement and does
not rest on a newly created one-tribe-per-reservation rule, as plaintiffs contend.
Based on the foregoing, the Regional Director acted within her discretion to determine
that a tribe cannot be comprised of only a subset of the Indians residing on a reservation.
16
Because plaintiffs comprise only a part of the group for whom the Pinoleville Reservation was
17
established, and are only some of the Indians living on the Reservation, the Regional Director
18
was within her discretion when she denied them the right to seek organization. Her
19
determination follows from the language of the statute and implementing regulation and is not
20
“arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law.”
21
3.
The Regional Director Did Not Breach Her Trust Duty To Plaintiffs.
22
Finally, plaintiffs contend that the Regional Director breached her duty of trust to them
23
by breaching the settlement agreement, and her decision should be set aside on this basis (Dkt.
24
No. 30 at 20). This argument, however, simply rehashes their previous arguments. They
25
contend that she applied an erroneous standard by finding that a tribe must be more than a
26
subset of the Indians for whom a reservation is set aside, and that applying this standard
27
amounted to a breach of the agreement because she should have applied plaintiffs’
28
interpretation, which would permit any sub-group of the Indians for whom a reservation is set
12
1
2
aside to attain tribal recognition. For the reasons set forth above, this argument fails. The
Regional Director’s decision was sound.
3
CONCLUSION
4
For the foregoing reasons, federal defendants’ motion for summary judgment is
5
GRANTED. Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment is DENIED. The Clerk shall please
6
CLOSE THE FILE.
7
8
9
IT IS SO ORDERED.
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
12
Dated: November 27, 2017.
13
WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
13
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?