City of Wolf Point et al v. Mail et al

Filing 16

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER. 1) The City's 9 Motion for Default Judgment is DENIED. 2) The case is dismissed without prejudice for failure to exhaust tribal court remedies. Signed by Judge Sam E Haddon on 5/24/2011. (SLR, )

Fl LED

2011 MAY 25 Arl 8 Y

9
B1 _______

G"P

YCLERK

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA

GREAT FALLS DIVISION

CITY OF WOLF POINT, MAYOR
DEWAYNE JAGER, WOLF POINT
POLICE COMMISSIONERS, WOLF
POINT CITY COUNCIL, POLICE
CHIEF JEFF HARADA, and TROY
MELUM,

No. CV-lO-72-GF-SEH
MEMORANDUM
AND ORDER

Plaintiffs,
vs.
JULIANNE MAIL and ALYSSA
EAGLE BOY,
Defendants.
INTRODUCTION
This action, alleging jurisdiction under 28 U.S.c. § 1331, was brought by
the City of Wolf Point, Mayor DeWayne Jager, Wolf Point Police Commissioners,
Wolf Point City Council, Police Chief Jeff Harada, and Troy Melum (collectively
"City") against Julianne Mail ("Mail") and Alyssa Eagle Boy (HEagle Boy"}. It

was filed on the heels of commencement of suit by Mail and Eagle Boy in Fort
Peck Tribal Court against the Plaintiffs here, seeking compensatory damages,
punitive damages, legal fees, and costs for claims under tribal law arising from an
alleged altercation between Mail, Eagle Boy, and Troy Melum, who is
characterized as a City of Wolf Point Animal Control Officer.! Plaintiffs seek a
judgment of dismissal of the pending tribal court case on subject matter
jurisdiction grounds.

BACKGROUND2
The Defendants in the tribal court proceedings, and who are the Plaintiffs
here, appeared in tribal court and raised the issue of lack of subject matter
jurisdiction by motion. Ruling on the motion has yet to be made. No answer has
been filed. The case remains pending and unresolved.
Defendants Mail and Eagle Boy were served with summons in this case on
December 18,2010, and January lO, 2011, respectively. Neither appeared. On
motion of Plaintiffs, the default of each was entered. The current motion for entry
of default judgment of dismissal followed.

1

The Fon Peck Tribal Court case is captioned Mail v. City of Wolf Point, No. 10-7-121

(Flo Peck Tribal Ct. filed July 21. 2010).
2 The background summary is compiled from the allegations of the Complaint in this case
and records of the tribal court proceedings produced in compliance with the Court's Order. See
Order at 2 (Apr. 5, 2011), ECF No. 10.

2

DISCUSSION

Questions of tribal court authority over non-Indians are matters offederal
law, cognizable under 28 U.S.c. § 1331. Strate v. A-I Contractors, 520 U.S. 438,
448 (1997); Natl. Farmers Union Ins. Companies v. Crow Tribe of Indians, 471
U.S. 845, 852-53 (1985). However, federal jurisdiction generally is not to be
invoked to address such questions until litigants have exhausted available
remedies in tribal court. NatI. Farmers Union Ins. Companies, 471 U.S. at 856-57;

ct. Iowa Mut. Ins. Co. v. LaPlante, 480 U.S. 9, 16-17 (1987). Limited exceptions
to the exhaustion principle have been recognized, however. Elliott v. White Mt.
Apache Tribal Ct., 566 F.3d 842, 847 (9th Cir. 2009) (discussing exceptions to
exhaustion of tribal court remedies). 3
Plaintiffs rely primarily on Nevada v. Hicks, 533 U.S. 353, 369 (2001) to
argue that exhaustion is not required in this case because tribal jurisdiction cannot
be exercised over state officers who act in their official capacities and adherence
to the exhaustion requirement would serve no purpose other than delay. The
record before the Court, however, precludes any such sweeping abandonment of
the exhaustion requirement.

3 Possible additional exceptions to the exhaustion of tribal remedies are neither advocated
by Plaintiffs nor appropriate to the case at bar. See. e.g., Natl. Farmers Union Ins. Companies,
471 U.S. at 856 n. 21.

3

Hicks was litigated and decided on what appears to have been fully
developed factual records in both the tribal and federal courts. See Hicks, 533
U.s. at 355-57. By contrast, both the record in the Fort Peck Tribal Court case and
the record in this case are sorely lacking in factual details that may, or may not, be
significant to the question of tribal court jurisdiction.
Although Mail and Eagle Boy are claimed to be enrolled members of the
Fort Peck Tribes, their status is yet to be established. Troy MeLum' s status as an
officer of the Wolf Point Police Department is disputed. Compare Complaint at,1\
1, 14, 16 (Nov. 4, 2011), ECF No.1, with Complaint at 1\7, Mail v. City of Wolf
Point, No. 10-7-121 (Ft. Peck Tribal Ct. July 21, 2010). Whether the events
alleged in the tribal court complaint occurred on Indian land or on non-Indian land
likewise is not settled.

In Hicks, claims were asserted against state officials who entered a
reservation to search the home of a tribal member who was suspected of
committing crimes outside the reservation. Hicks, 533 U.S. at 355. The facts here
are distinctly different. The claims in this case are for acts and conduct alleged to
have been carried out against Indians within the exterior boundaries of the
reservation. Ownership and control of the land on which the operative events
occurred has not been established.
The City additionally cites to Mont. v. Gilham, 932 F. Supp. 1215, 1224 (D.

4

Mont. 1996), air d, 133 F.3d 1133 (9th Cif. 1998), for the proposition that the
State of Montana and its agents cannot be sued in tribal court for alleged torts.
Although Gilham addressed suit against the State of Montana, no conclusion was
drawn by the District Court as to the propriety of suit in tribal court against agents
of the State. See Gilham, 932 F. Supp. at 1224. Moreover, on appeal, the Ninth
Circuit specifically "declin[ed] to address whether agents of a State may be sued
in tribal court ...." Gilham, 133 F.3d at 1140 n. 8. The State of Montana is not a
party to the pending tribal court suit. Gilham clearly did not reach or decide the
parameters of tribal court jurisdiction as applied to the facts of this case.
As noted above, numerous questions are raised by the pleadings in the tribal
court action that may bear directly upon whether that forum has jurisdiction over
the matter before it. Those questions cannot appropriately be addressed short of
full and final resolution of all issues in that case. A conclusion that the tribal court
has jurisdiction remains plausible.

~

Atwood v. Ft. Peck Tribal Ct. Assiniboine,

513 F.3d 943, 948 (9th Cir. 2008).
Further proceedings in this Court are premature absent exhaustion of tribal
court remedies. The case should be dismissed. See Nat!. Farmers Union Ins.
Companies, 471 U.S. at 857; Atwood, 513 F.3d at 948.

5

ORDERED:
1.

The City's Motion for Default Judgment4 is DENIED.

2.

The case is dismissed without prejudice for failure to exhaust tribal

court remedies.
DATED this

~

lIt:<.,day of May, 2011.

United States District Judge

4

Document No.9

6