Cheyenne and Arapaho Tribes v. Wandrie Harjo et al

Filing 23

ORDER re 14 Order to Show Cause, striking 22 Response to Order to Show Cause, filed by Cheyenne and Arapaho Tribes. Signed by Honorable Timothy D. DeGiusti on 5/12/2015. (mb)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
CHEYENNE AND ARAPAHO TRIBES,
Plaintiff,
v.
LESLIE WANDRIE-HARJO, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. CIV-15-262-D

ORDER
By Order of April 3, 2015, the Court ordered Plaintiff to show cause why this action
should not be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because the Complaint
contained insufficient allegations to establish jurisdiction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1163 and
28 U.S.C. § 1362, as asserted by Plaintiff. On May 7, 2015, Plaintiff filed an amended
pleading that adds a claim against Defendant Leslie Wandrie-Harjo under the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961-68, based on
allegations that she and others engaged in a pattern of racketeering activity involving mail
fraud and wire fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1341 and § 1343 respectively. Without
expressing any opinion as to the sufficiency of the First Amended Complaint to state a RICO
claim, the Court finds that the claim is not so insubstantial as to warrant a finding that
Plaintiff has failed to plead a basis for subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1362.
See Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Environment, 523 U.S. 83, 89-90 (1998) (“Dismissal
for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction because of the inadequacy of the federal claim is
proper only when the claim is ‘so insubstantial, implausible, foreclosed by prior decisions

of this Court, or otherwise completely devoid of merit as not to involve a federal
controversy.’”) (quoting Oneida Indian Nation v. County of Oneida, 414 U.S. 661, 666
(1974)).
Contemporaneously with filing the First Amended Complaint, Plaintiff filed a separate
response to the show cause order with multiple attachments, totaling 79 pages. However,
Plaintiff failed to provide a courtesy copy in a timely manner, as required by LCvR5.2(c) and
the Court’s ECF Policies and Procedures Manual, § II.A.5. Thus, the Court finds that the
filing should be stricken.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Response to Show Cause Order [Doc.
No. 22] is stricken from the case record, but the case shall proceed under the First Amended
Complaint.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 12th day of May, 2015.

2