USA, et al v. State of Washington, et al

Filing 22424

ORDER denying Interested Parties' 22423 Motion for Reconsideration. To the extent the Court's legal reasoning was incorrect, Lummi has appealed the Court's order to the court of appeals which is now the appropriate forum for S'Klallam to raise its concerns. Signed by Judge Ricardo S. Martinez. (SB)

1
2
3
4
5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

6
7

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al.,

8

Plaintiffs,

9

SUBPROCEEDING NO. 19-01 RSM
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION

v.

10

CASE NO. C70-9213 RSM

STATE OF WASHINGTON, et al.,

11

Defendants.

12
13
14

This matter is before the Court on a motion for reconsideration filed by interested parties

15

the Jamestown S’Klallam Tribe and the Port Gamble S’Klallam Tribe (collectively “S’Klallam”).

16

Dkt. #84.1 The motion requests that this Court reconsider specific passages in its prior order

17

resolving this subproceeding. Id. Specifically, S’Klallam believes that the Court implied “that

18

any transiting Tribe may fish the waters west of Whidbey Island as a thoroughfare for their usual

19

and accustomed fishing grounds and stations (“U&A”).” Id. at 1. The Court is without

20

jurisdiction to consider S’Klallam’s motion and denies it on that basis. But the Court also

21

disagrees with the arguments that S’Klallam advances.

22
23
24

1

Dkt. #22,423 in Case No. C70-9213RSM.

ORDER – 1

1

The Court does not have jurisdiction to grant the S’Klallam’s requested relief. On

2

September 23, 2021, the Lummi Nation (“Lummi”) filed a notice of appeal related to the Court’s

3

order resolving this subproceeding. Dkt. #81.2 “The filing of a notice of appeal is an event of

4

jurisdictional significance—it confers jurisdiction on the court of appeals and divests the district

5

court of its control over those aspects of the case involved in the appeal.” Griggs v. Provident

6

Consumer Disc. Co., 459 U.S. 56, 58 (1982); see also United States v. Sprague, 135 F.3d 1301,

7

1307 (9th Cir. 1998). S’Klallam’s motion for reconsideration was not filed until October 1,

8

2021—after jurisdiction transferred to the court of appeals. S’Klallam argues that a timely

9

motion to reconsider “can divest the appellate court of jurisdiction.” Dkt. #84 at 2 (citing FED.

10

R. APP. P. 4(a)(4); Tinsley v. Borg, 895 F.2d 520, 523 (9th Cir. 1990); Tripati v. Henman, 845

11

F.2d 205, 205-06 (9th Cir. 1988)). But the cases S’Klallam points to dealt with parties filing

12

notices of appeal before subsequently filing their own motions for reconsideration. S’Klallam

13

points to nothing supporting the idea that it can instead nullify the notice of appeal filed by

14

Lummi. S’Klallam’s motion is denied on this basis.

15

Alternatively, S’Klallam seeks an indicative ruling under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

16

62.1. Dkt. #84 at 2. Pursuant to Rule 62.1, courts may defer consideration of a motion it is

17

without jurisdiction to consider because of a pending appeal, may deny the motion, or may issue

18

an indicative ruling to the court of appeals. FED. R. CIV. P. 62.1(a). Here, and even if the Court

19

had jurisdiction to consider the motion for reconsideration, the Court would deny the motion.

20

“Motions for reconsideration are disfavored.” LOCAL RULES W.D. WASH. LCR 7(h)(1).

21

Consequently, the Court will “ordinarily deny such motions in the absence of a showing of

22

manifest error in the prior ruling or a showing of new facts or legal authority which could not

23
24

2

Dkt. #22,421 in Case No. C70-9213RSM.

ORDER – 2

1

have been brought to [the Court’s] attention earlier with reasonable diligence.” Id. “This

2

requirement is a ‘high hurdle.’” Weeks v. Bayer, 246 F.3d 1231, 1236 (9th Cir. 2001).

3

S’Klallam’s central complaint is its belief that two sentences in the Court’s order imply

4

that all tribes traveled and fished through the waters west of Whidbey Island. First, S’Klallam

5

points to the Court’s explanation that “the Ninth Circuit has previously determined that the waters

6

west of Whidbey Island served as the primary thoroughfare for tribes traveling between the Fraser

7

River and the environs of Seattle.” Dkt. #793 at 7 (relying on United States v. Lummi Nation,

8

876 F.3d 1004 (9th Cir. 2017) and Tulalip Tribes v. Suquamish Indian Tribe, 794 F.3d 1129 (9th

9

Cir. 2015)). Second, S’Klallam points to the Court’s explanation that “[t]he Ninth Circuit has

10

already determined that Judge Boldt regarded the waters west of Whidbey Island as the main

11

north-south thoroughfare between the environs of Seattle and the Fraser River.” Dkt. #79 at 17

12

(citing Tulalip Tribes, 794 F.3d at 1135). From these statements, S’Klallam concludes that the

13

Court mistakenly held that all tribes traveled through the waters west of Whidbey Island and that

14

all tribes may fish in the waters west of Whidbey.

15

The Court does not share the same concerns. As S’Klallam recognizes, this case related

16

only to Lummi’s U&A. The Court’s order pointed to two prior cases, and specific passages

17

therein, interpreting Lummi U&A and Suquamish U&A. S’Klallam does not argue that the Court

18

committed error by misquoting those cases. Rather, S’Klallam objects to the Court’s legal

19

interpretation of those cases. But S’Klallam’s hypothetical reading of the Court’s order does not

20

establish manifest error. To the extent the Court’s legal reasoning was incorrect, Lummi has

21

appealed the Court’s order to the court of appeals which is now the appropriate forum for

22

S’Klallam to raise its concerns.

23
24

3

Dkt. #22,413 in Case No. C70-9213RSM.

ORDER – 3

1

Accordingly, and having considered S’Klallam’s motion and the remainder of the record,

2

the Court finds and ORDERS that Jamestown S’Klallam Tribe’s and Port Gamble S’Klallam

3

Tribe’s Motion for Reconsideration (Dkt. #84) is DENIED.

4

DATED this 5th day of October, 2021.

5
6

A

7

RICARDO S. MARTINEZ
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
ORDER – 4