Doucette et al v. Zinke et al

Filing 53

ORDER denying Plaintiffs' 45 Motion for Indicative Ruling on Plaintiffs' Rule 60(b) and 15(a)(2) Motions. Signed by Judge Thomas S. Zilly.(MW)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

6
7

ROBERT DOUCETTE, et al.,

8
9
10
11

Plaintiffs,
v.

C18-859 TSZ

DAVID BERNHARDT, Secretary of
United States Department of the
Interior, et al.,

12

MINUTE ORDER

Defendants.

13

The following Minute Order is made by direction of the Court, the Honorable
14 Thomas S. Zilly, United States District Judge:
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22

(1)
Plaintiffs’ Motion for an Indicative Ruling pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 62.1, docket no. 45, is DENIED. In March 2018, defendants
(collectively referred to herein as the “BIA”) recognized the Nooksack Tribal Council
following a December 2017 Special Election to fill four vacant seats. Plaintiffs
challenged the election under the Administrative Procedure Act. This Court granted
summary judgment in favor of the BIA and plaintiffs appealed. The appeal is still
pending. Plaintiffs now seek an “indicative ruling” from this Court that it would grant
motions brought under Rule 60(b) and Rule 15(a)(2) based on “New Evidence.”
Plaintiffs do not, however, demonstrate that the “New Evidence” would have had any
effect on the ultimate decision of the BIA. At most, the “New Evidence” questions the
timing of the BIA’s decision. As noted in the Court’s previous Order, the BIA had
“concluded that the [primary and general] elections were conducted in accordance with
the requirements set forth in the Nooksack Constitution and Title 62 of the Nooksack
Tribal Code.” Order at 8 (docket no. 41) (citing AR 87 & 89-90). The Court also
addressed the only specific challenge that plaintiffs presented to the BIA and continued to

23
MINUTE ORDER - 1

1 advance in this litigation, namely that ballots were improperly cast in person, rather than
by mail. The BIA ultimately concluded that whether ballots could be submitted by hand
2 or had to be postmarked was “one of tribal law and the BIA decline[d] to insert itself and
interpret tribal law in this instance.” AR 89. Plaintiffs’ “New Evidence” does not
3 address or have any bearing on that conclusion. Plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate any
basis to overturn the BIA’s decision to recognize the Nooksack Tribal Council. 1 As a
4 result, the Court declines to enter the requested relief. 2
5

(2)
record.

6

The Clerk is directed to send a copy of this Minute Order to all counsel of

Dated this 20th day of March, 2020.

7
William M. McCool
Clerk

8
9

s/Karen Dews
Deputy Clerk

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

1

Any failure to disclose the “New Evidence” in responses to a third party’s Freedom of
Information Act requests is not a basis for the Court to reconsider its previous ruling.
2

Plaintiffs indicate that, if their Rule 62.1 motion is not granted, they intend to bring a new suit
based on the “New Evidence.” Reply at 2 n.1 (docket no. 52). As a result, plaintiffs state that
21
“the underlying question before the Court is whether any new APA claim should be a part of this
action.” Id. The answer to that question is clear. Any new challenge based on the “New
22 Evidence” should not be part of this action.

23
MINUTE ORDER - 2