Tribal Council Answering Brief ______
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Case: 13-16182, 06/22/2015, ID: 9583554, DktEntry: 52, Page 1 of 44 No. 13-16182 IN THE United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit _________ TIMBISHA SHOSHONE TRIBE, JOSEPH KENNEDY, ET AL., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, ET AL., Defendants-Appellees. MARGARET CORTEZ, ET AL., Tribal Council Defendants-Appellees. _________ On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, No. 2:11-cv-00995-MCE-DAD _________ TRIBAL COUNCIL ANSWERING BRIEF _________ MARK A. LEVITAN (CA 186990) JAMES M. BIRKELUND (CA 206328) MARK A. LEVITAN, ATTORNEY AT LAW LAW OFFICES OF JAMES BIRKELUND P.O. BOX 5475 548 MARKET ST., # 11200 SONORA, CA 95370 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94105 TELEPHONE: (209) 533-0885 TELEPHONE: (415) 602-6223 FAX: (209) 396-9004 FAX: (415) 789-4556 EMAIL: [email protected] EMAIL: [email protected] Attorneys for Tribal Council Attorneys for Tribal Council Defendants-Appellees Defendants-Appellees Case: 13-16182, 06/22/2015, ID: 9583554, DktEntry: 52, Page 2 of 44 CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT Pursuant to Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure 26.1, Appellees Margaret Cortez, William Eddy, Earl Frank, George Gholson, and Clyde Nichols hereby certify that they are individuals and/or officials of a government entity and thus are not corporations requiring disclosure pursuant to the rules. By: _____/s/ James Birkelund JAMES M. BIRKELUND i Case: 13-16182, 06/22/2015, ID: 9583554, DktEntry: 52, Page 3 of 44 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................... 1 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION ........................................................................ 2 STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES ............................................................................. 3 STATEMENT OF THE CASE ................................................................................ 3 I. Tribal Governance ............................................................................................. 3 II. History of Tribal Political Disputes .................................................................. 5 III. New Material Facts .......................................................................................... 7 IV. Procedural Background .................................................................................... 9 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT .............................................................................. 10 STANDARD OF APPELLATE REVIEW ............................................................ 12 ARGUMENT .......................................................................................................... 12 I. This Case Is Moot Because the 2011 Elected Council Is No Longer in Existence and Plaintiffs Cannot Obtain Any Effective Relief .................... 12 II. The Appeal Is Not Exempt From the Mootness Doctrine Because the 2011 Disputes Will Not Recur .................................................... 18 III. The Tribe and Tribal Council Are Entitled to Sovereign Immunity ............... 20 ii Case: 13-16182, 06/22/2015, ID: 9583554, DktEntry: 52, Page 4 of 44 TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) IV. If the Court Rejects Mootness and Determines There is Any Possibility of Meaningful Relief, Then the Court Should Affirm Dismissal of the Suit Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 19 ................... 22 A. The District Court Correctly Determined the Tribe and Tribal Council Are Necessary Parties Under Rule 19(a) ................... 23 B. The District Court Correctly Determined the Tribe and Tribal Council Are Indispensible Parties Under Rule 19(b) .............. 28 CONCLUSION ....................................................................................................... 34 CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE WITH RULE 32(a)(7) STATEMENT OF RELATED CASES CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE iii Case: 13-16182, 06/22/2015, ID: 9583554, DktEntry: 52, Page 5 of 44 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CASES Alto v. Black, 738 F.3d 1111(9th Cir. 2013) ............................................................ 27 American Greyhound Racing, Inc. v. Hull, 305 F.3d 1024 (9th Cir. 2002) .................................................................... 28, 30, 31 Attorney’s Process & Investigation Servs. v. Sac & Fox Tribe, 609 F.3d 927 (8th Cir. 2010) .................................................................................. 14 Burlington Norther & Sante Fe Ry. Co. v. Vaughn, 509 F.3d 1085 (9th Cir. 2007) ................................................................................ 20 Cachil Dehe Band of Wintun Indians of the Colusa Indian Community v. California, 547 F.3d 962 (9th Cir. 2008) ................................................................ 25 California Valley Miwok Tribe v. Salazar, 967 F. Supp.2d 84 (D.C. 2013) .......... 21 Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma v. United States, 117 F.3d 1489 (D.C. 1997) ..................................................................................... 21 Confederated Tribes of the Chehalis Indian Reservation v. Lujan, 928 F.2d 1496 (9th Cir. 1991) .......................................................................... 23, 29 Dawavendewa v. Salt River Project Agr. Imp. and Power Dist., 276 F.3d 1150 (9th Cir. 2002) ................................................................................ 31 Deutsche Bank Nat. Trust Co. v. F.D.I. C., 744 F.3d 1124 (9th Cir.2014) ............ 16 Ex Parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (1908) .............................................................. 20, 21 Friends of Amador City v. Salazar, 554 F. App'x 562 (9th Cir. 2014) ................... 27 Gator.com Corp. v. L.L. Bean, Inc., 398 F.3rd 1125 (9th Cir. 2005) ..................... 12 Grand Canyon Trust v. U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, 691 F.3d 1008 (9th Cir. 2012) ................................................................................ 15 iv Case: 13-16182, 06/22/2015, ID: 9583554, DktEntry: 52, Page 6 of 44 Illinois Board of Elections v. Socialist Workers Party, 440 U.S. 173 (1979) ........ 18 In re: Sac & Fox Tribe of the Mississippi in Iowa Casino Litigation, 340 F.3d 749 (8th Cir. 2003) .................................................................................. 14 Kennedy v. U.S. Dep't of the Interior, 282 F.R.D. 588 (E.D. Cal. 2012) ............... 32 Kescoli v. Babbitt, 101 F.3d 1304 (9th Cir. 1996) ........................................... passim Keweenaw Bay Indian Community v. State of Michigan, 11 F.3d 1341 (6th Cir. 1993) .................................................................................. 26 Lee v. Schmidt–Wenzel, 766 F.2d 1389 (9th Cir.1985) .................................... 13, 18 Lewis v. Continental Bank, 494 U.S. 472 (1990) ................................................... 12 Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95 (1983). ............................................................. 18 Makah Indian Tribe v. Verity, 910 F.2d 555 (9th Cir. 1990) .......................... passim Maldonado v. Lynch, No. 09-71491, WL 2343051 (9th Cir. 2015) ....................... 17 Home & Agric. Co-ops Ass'n v. United States, 30 F.3d 1088 (9th Cir. 1994) ...................................................................... 21, 22, 27 Quileute Indian Tribe v. Babbitt, 18 F.3d 1456 (9th Cir. 1994) ............................. 23 Republic of the Philippines v. Pimentel, 553 U.S. 851 (2008) ................... 20, 30, 31 Sac & Fox Tribe of the Mississippi in Iowa v. Bureau of Indian Affairs, 439 F.3d 832 (8th Cir. 2006) ........................................................................... passim Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement and Power District v. Lee, 672 F.3d 1176 (9th Cir. 2012) .......................................................................... 20, 21 Shermoen v. United States, 982 F.2d 1312 (9th Cir. 1992) ................. 22, 23, 26, 32 Smith v. Acting Pac. Reg’l Dir., 42 IBIA 224 (2006) ............................................. 14 v Case: 13-16182, 06/22/2015, ID: 9583554, DktEntry: 52, Page 7 of 44 Southwest Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. Babbitt, 150 F.3d 1152 (9th Cir. 1998) .......................................................................... 27, 28 Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1 (1998) ..................................................................... 18 Students for a Conservative America v. Greenwood, 391 F3d 978 (9th Cir. 2004) ................................................................................... 13 Trustees for Alaska v. E.P.A., 749 F.2d 549 (9th Cir.1984) ................................... 19 United States v. Oregon, 718 F.2d 299 (9th Cir.1983) ........................................... 12 Van v. Kempthorne, 534 F.3d 741 .......................................................................... 21 Wahyou v. Cent. Valley Nat'l Bank, 361 F.2d 755 (9th Cir. 1966) ......................... 13 Washington v. Daley, 173 F.3d 1158 (9th Cir. 1999) ............................................. 26 White v. University of California, 765 F.3d 1010 (9th Cir. 2014) ................... passim STATUTES 12 U.S.C. § 74 ......................................................................................................... 13 16 U.S.C. § 1855 ....................................................................................................... 2 25 U.S.C. § 476 ....................................................................................................... 16 28 U.S.C. § 1291 ......................................................................................................