Miles et al v. The Secretary of the Department of Interior et al
Filing
29
ORDERED that the # 22 Motion to vacate is GRANTED. FURTHER ORDERED that the # 21 Motion for attorney fees is DENIED without prejudice. FURTHER ORDERED that the # 24 Motion to defer briefing is DENIED as moot. Signed by Judge Robert C. Jones on 7/23/2014. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DRM)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
THE DIRECT LINEAL DESCENDANTS OF )
)
ROSIE JACK AND WAGON JACK;
)
MARION GAYLE nee SANDERS MILES; )
NANCY LAURA nee SANDERS
)
)
STEWART;
)
JODY FAYE WHITE;
JODY FAYE WHITE, or the Estate of JESSE )
)
WAYNE WHITE; and WILLIAM EDWARD )
WHITE,
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
vs.
)
)
)
)
THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR,
)
through its Acting Assistant Secretary,
BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS, its officers, )
)
servants, agents, employees, representatives, )
and attorneys,
)
)
Defendants.
)
)
)
3:13-cv-00657-RCJ-WGC
ORDER
17
In this case, five plaintiffs seek judicial review of a denial of their applications for
18
inclusion on the Western Shoshone Judgment Roll. On June 6, 2014, this Court entered an order
19
(ECF No. 20) approving a stipulation (ECF No. 12), filed on April 9, 2014, for remand to the
20
Secretary of the Interior and entry of final judgment under the APA. On April 17, 2014, prior to
21
the entry of the June 6 order, the Secretary moved to withdraw the then-pending stipulation,
22
arguing that “the directive to add the five plaintiffs to the Western Shoshone Judgment roll
23
cannot be supported by the existing analysis of the current [Administrative Record] and is thus
24
not in accordance with the Western Shoshone Claims Distribution Act.” (Mot. Withdraw, ECF
25
No. 13, at 4).
26
Following the Court’s entry of the order approving the June 6 stipulation, plaintiffs filed
27
the pending motion for attorney fees and expenses (ECF No. 21), based on the Court’s entry of
28
“final judgment.” The same day, defendants filed the pending Rule 60(b)(1) motion to vacate the
1
1
June 6 order, arguing that the “stipulation previously submitted . . . does not represent the final
2
and complete position of the Secretary in this action” and that “[t]he secretary’s motion to
3
withdraw the stipulation was filed only eight days after the stipulation was submitted.” (ECF No.
4
22). Defendants further note that the Court approved the stipulation “without any reference to the
5
[then-pending] motion to withdraw.” (Id. at 4). Defendants also filed the pending, unopposed
6
motion to defer briefing on plaintiffs’ motion for fees and costs. (ECF No. 24).
7
Plaintiffs’ response to the motion to vacate includes only the following statement:
8
“Plaintiffs are confident that the Court is fully cognizant of the matters on its docket and,
9
therefore, rest upon their prior pleadings.” (Response, ECF No. 23, at 1).
10
Local Rule 7-2 provides that the “failure of an opposing party to file points and
11
authorities in response to any motion shall constitute a consent to the granting of the motion.”
12
Here, plaintiffs have failed to file points and authorities in their “response” to the motion to
13
vacate. (See ECF No. 23, at 1). It is not the Court’s duty to infer or manufacture a substantive
14
response from clues hidden in plaintiffs’ “prior pleadings.” The familiar refrain is worth
15
repeating: “judges are not like pigs, hunting for truffles buried in briefs.” Guatay Christian
16
Fellowship v. Cnty. of San Diego, 670 F.3d 957, 987 (9th Cir. 2011). “Nor are they
17
archaeologists searching for treasure.” Jones v. Las Vegas Valley Water Dist., No. 2:10-CV-
18
1941-JAD-PAL, 2014 WL 1248233, at *6 (D. Nev. Mar. 26, 2014). Plaintiffs effectively
19
consented to the granting of defendants’ viable motion to vacate (ECF No. 22), and it is therefore
20
granted. Accordingly, the motion for attorney fees (ECF No. 21) is denied, without prejudice, as
21
premature, and the motion to defer briefing (ECF No. 24) is denied as moot.
22
///
23
///
24
///
25
///
26
///
27
28
2
1
2
CONCLUSION
3
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motion to vacate (ECF No. 22) is GRANTED.
4
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the motion for attorney fees (ECF No. 21) is DENIED
5
without prejudice.
6
7
8
9
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the motion to defer briefing (ECF No. 24) is DENIED
as moot.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
10
11
12
13
14
Dated: _______________________.
July 23, 2014
_____________________________________
ROBERT C. JONES
United States District Judge
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
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?