Winnemucca Indian Colony et al v. United States of America Department of the Interior et al

Filing 204

ORDER denying 190 Motion for Summary Judgment; IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties shall SUBMIT their lists of names for a tribal judge within fourteen (14) days of the entry of this Order into the electronic docket. Cross objections shall be due seven (7) days thereafter. In the alternative, the parties MAY SUBMIT a stipulated name within fourteen (14) days of the entry of this Order into the electronic docket. See PDF for Specifics. Signed by Judge Robert C. Jones on 2/10/14. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - BLG)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

6
WINNEMUCCA INDIAN COLONY et al.,
7
Plaintiffs,
8
vs.
9
10
11

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ex rel.
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

3:11-cv-00622-RCJ-VPC
ORDER

12
13

This case arises out of the refusal of the Bureau of Indian Affairs (“BIA”) to recognize a

14

tribal government of the Winnemucca Indian Colony, an Indian sovereign recognized by

15

Congress. The proceedings have been acrimonious. In summary, the Court has ordered the BIA

16

to recognize Thomas Wasson as the interim Chairman pending finalization of tribal enrollment

17

and elections and any appeals thereof to the Indian courts.

18

Plaintiffs have now moved for summary judgment based upon the purported enrollment

19

and election results, but Intervenor Defendants challenge the results and oppose summary

20

judgment. Intervenor Defendants asked the Court to hold a status conference and to give them

21

time thereafter to oppose the pending motion for summary judgment. The Court granted the

22

motion and noted that the pending motion for summary judgment had little chance of success, as

23

this Court’s role vis-a-vis the tribal enrollment and election issues is only to recognize and give

24

effect to authoritative Indian court rulings pertaining thereto. The merits of enrollment and

25

election issues must be litigated in the tribal courts.

1

At the February 10, 2014 status conference, the parties indicated that they had not yet

2

agreed upon a tribal judge to adjudicate enrollment and election issues as the Court had

3

demanded at the May 29, 2013 hearing, (see Hr’s Tr. 29:10–12, May. 29, 2013, ECF No. 183 (“I

4

want a tribal judge, associate judge, that both sides agree on, and I want that accomplished this

5

week.”)), but only that a CFR court instituted by the BIA was currently adjudicating several

6

unclear issues, many of which may have nothing to do with the present dispute. The BIA has not

7

been able to adjudicate these issues in the decade plus they have been before it. That is why this

8

Court accepted jurisdiction under the futility provision of the APA. In any case, it is a tribal

9

court, not this Court or a CFR court, that must adjudicate the present conflict of tribal

10

governance, and this Court simply has jurisdiction under the APA to enforce such rulings. The

11

parties have simply been unable to agree upon a neutral tribal judge. The election of a tribal

12

judge to settle the present enrollment and election disputes is impossible given the nature of the

13

present disputes. Not only would that elected judge have to adjudicate the tribal membership of

14

those eligible to vote for the members of the Tribal Council and election issues generally, he

15

would also have to adjudicate the validity of his own election. As noted at the hearing, therefore,

16

this Court has no choice but to select a neutral tribal judge for the purposes of the present

17

enrollment and election disputes and will do so if the parties cannot quickly agree upon a neutral

18

tribal judge. After the parties agree upon a neutral judge or the Court selects one, that judge shall

19

hear the tribal enrollment and election disputes, with recourse to the Inter-tribal Court of Appeals

20

of Nevada. Once the disputes are final in the Indian courts, this Court will acknowledge the

21

authoritative rulings for the purposes of the present action.

22

///

23

///

24

///

25

///
Page 2 of 3

CONCLUSION

1
2
3
4

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 190) is
DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties shall SUBMIT their lists of names for a

5

tribal judge within fourteen (14) days of the entry of this Order into the electronic docket. Cross-

6

objections shall be due seven (7) days thereafter. In the alternative, the parties MAY SUBMIT a

7

stipulated name within fourteen (14) days of the entry of this Order into the electronic docket.

8
9

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated this 10th day of February, 2014.

10
11
12

__________________________________
_
_ __
__ _ __
_____________________________________
ROBERT C. JONES
ROBERT C. JONES
OB
OB R
United States District Judge
S tes
States District

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Page 3 of 3