Case 2:10-cv-01306-GEB -GGH Document 29-1 Filed 01/21/11 Page 1 of 43 1 Colin Cloud Hampson (Bar No.174184) SONOSKY, CHAMBERS, SACHSE, 2 ENDRESON & PERRY, LLP 750 B Street, Suite 3130 3 San Diego, California 92101 Telephone: (619) 546-5585 4 Attorneys for Cahto Tribe of the 5 Laytonville Rancheria 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 CAHTO TRIBE OF THE LAYTONVILLE ) Case No. 2:10-CV-01306-GEB-GGH RANCHERIA, ) 8 ) ) Plaintiff, 9 ) MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF ) CAHTO TRIBE’S MOTION FOR vs. ) SUMMARY JUDGMENT 10 ) AMY DUTSCHKE, Regional Director for the ) 11 ) Pacific Region, Bureau of Indian Affairs, ) United States Department of the ) 12 Interior, KEN SALAZAR, Secretary of the ) Hearing: May 2, 2011 9:00 a.m. Interior, United States Department of the ) Judge: Garland E. Burrell, Jr. 13 ) Interior, LARRY ECHO HAWK, Assistant ) Secretary – Indian Affairs, United States 14 ) Department of the Interior, ) ) 15 Defendants. ) ) 16 ) ) 17 MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF 18 CAHTO TRIBE’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 19 20 21 22 23 24 109967.1 Case 2:10-cv-01306-GEB -GGH Document 29-1 Filed 01/21/11 Page 2 of 43 1 Table of Contents Page 2 INTRODUCTION ...........................................................................................................................1 3 STATEMENT OF FACTS ..............................................................................................................2 4 A. Background ..............................................................................................................2 5 B. The Present Action.................................................................................................10 6 JURISDICTION ............................................................................................................................10 7 ARGUMENT.................................................................................................................................11 8 I. PRINCIPLES OF ADMINISTRATIVE FINALITY, CLAIM AND ISSUE 9 PRECLUSION BARRED THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR FROM REVIEWING THE TRIBE’S 1995 DISENROLLMENT ACTION........................................................11 10 A. Principles of Administrative Finality Apply to the IBIA Decision In Cahto 11 Tribe.......................................................................................................................11 12 B. The Regional Director Was Precluded From Reopening Questions Related to the Bureau’s Authority To Intervene in the Disenrollment 13 of the Sloans...........................................................................................................13 14 II. THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR’S 2009 DECISION WAS ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS....................................................................................................................19 15 III. THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR’S DECISION WAS ERRONEOUSLY BASED ON A 16 FEDERAL REGULATION, 25 C.F.R. PART 62, WHICH DOES NOT APPLY HERE ...................................................................................................................22 17 A. Tribal Law Delegating Authority to Interior to Review Internal Tribal 18 Enrollment Matters Pursuant to 25 C.F.R. Part 62 Must Be Clear and Express...................................................................................................................22 19 B. The Regional Director’s Finding of Review Authority Under Part 62..................24 20 C. Tribal Law Did Not Authorize the Regional Director to Review the 21 Disenrollment Action as Required by 25 C.F.R. Part 62.......................................25 22 IV. THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR’S DECISION IS CONTRARY TO FEDERAL 22 LAW AS IT FAILS TO DEFER TO THE TRIBE’S INTERPRETATION OF 23 TRIBAL LAW REGARDING ELEGIBILITY FOR MEMBERSHIP.............................27 2423 Mem. Supp. Cahto Tribe Mot. Summ. J. - i Case 2:10-cv-01306-GEB -GGH Document 29-1 Filed 01/21/11 Page 3 of 43 1 Table of Contents 2 Page 3 A. Regional Director Was Required to Defer To A Reasonable Interpretation by the Tribe of Its Articles of Association......................................28 4 B. The Tribe’s Eligibility Determination Was Reasonable........................................30 5 1. The Tribe’s Determination That the Hoopa-Yurok 6 Settlement Act Was a Reservation Distribution Plan Was Reasonable .................................................................................................30 7 2. The Tribe’s Determination That The Sloans Has Been Included 8 On a Formal Membership Role with the Yurok Tribe Was Reasonable .................................................................................................32 9 V. THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR’S 2009 DECISION WAS CONTRARY TO 10 25 C.F.R. § 62.5 (b), TO THE EXTENT THAT THE 2009 DECISION PURPORTS TO RESOLVE ENROLLMENT MATTERS OF INDIVIDUALS 11 WHO WERE NOT SPECIFICALLY IDENTIFIED IN THE APPEALS ........................34 12 CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................35 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 22 23 2423 Mem. Supp. Cahto Tribe Mot. Summ. J. - ii Case 2:10-cv-01306-GEB -GGH Document 29-1 Filed 01/21/11 Page 4 of 43 1 Table of Authorities 2 Page 3 Cases 4 Astoria Federal Savings and Loan Ass’n v. Solimino, 501 U.S. 104 (1991).................................12 5 See B.B. v. Rocky Mountain Reg’l Dir., BIA, 39 IBIA 48, 2003 WL 23170161 (2003)…..…….17 6 Brady v. Acting Phoenix Area Dir., BIA, 30 IBIA 294, 1997 WL 316443 (1997)........................28 7 Bravo-Pedroza v. Gonzales, 475 F.3d 1358 (9th Cir. 2007) .........................................................12 8 Bullcreek v. W. Reg’l Dir., BIA, 39 IBIA 100, 2003 WL 23170180 (2003).................................18 9 Cahto Tribe of the Laytonville Rancheria v. Pacific Regional Director, BIA, 38 IBIA 244 (2002)..............................................3,4,5,6,7,9,11,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,22,26,27 10 Castillo v. Pac. Reg’l Dir., BIA, 46 IBIA 209, 2008 WL 723763 (2008) .....................................14 11 Dyniewicz v. United States, 742 F.2d 484 (9th Cir. 1984)........................................................34,35 12 Feezor v. Babbitt, 953 F.Supp. 1 (D.D.C. 1996) ...........................................................................29 13 Greater Boston Television Corp. v. FCC, 444 F.2d 841 (D.C. Cir. 1970)....................................20 14 Gupta v. Thai Airways Int’l, Ltd, 487 F.3d 759 (9th Cir. 2007)....................................................14 15 Cf. Harper v. Virginia Bd. of Elections, 383 U.S. 663 (1966).......................................................33 16 Hawkins v. Risley, 984 F.2d 321 (9th Cir. 1993)...........................................................................18 17 Holland v. Acting Muskogee Area Dir., BIA, 33 IBIA 64, 1998 WL 1006449 (1998) .................28 18 Kendall v. Overseas Dev. Corp., 700 F.2d 537 (9th Cir. 1983) ....................................................13 19 Lowe v. Acting E. Okla. Reg’l Dir., BIA, 48 IBIA 155, 2008 WL 5539394 (2008)......................14 20 Martin v. Hunter’s Lessee, 14 U.S. 304, 326 (1816)…………………………………………….31 21 Medina v. INS, 993 F.2d 499, reh’g denied, 1 F.3d 312 (9th Cir. 1993).......................................12 22 Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Assoc. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29 (1983).....................20 23 Mpoyo v. Litton Electro-Optical Sys., 430 F.3d 985 (9th Cir. 2005).............................................13 24 Mem. Supp. Cahto Tribe Mot. Summ. J. - iii Case 2:10-cv-01306-GEB -GGH Document 29-1 Filed 01/21/11 Page 5 of 43 1 Table of Authorities 2 Page 3 NW. Envtl. Def. Ctr. v. Bonneville Power Admin., 477 F.3d 668 (9th Cir. 2007) .........................20 4 Novak Brothers v. Acting Aberdeen Area Dir., BIA, 32 IBIA 126, 1998 WL 233737 (1998) ......18 5 O’Bryan v. United States, 93 Fed. Cl. 57 (2010)..................................................................... 12-13 6 In re Palmer, 207 F.3d 566 (9th Cir. 2000)...................................................................................13 7 Parker v. S. Plains Reg’l Dir., BIA, 45 IBIA 310, 2007 WL 4303070 (2007)..............................28 8 Ransom v. Babbitt, 69 F. Supp. 2d 141 (D.D.C. 1999)..................................................................23 9 Sameena Inc., v. U.S. Air Force, 147 F.3d 1148 (9th Cir. 1998)...................................................35 10 San Manuel Band of Mission Indians v. Sacramento Area Dir., BIA, 27 IBIA 204, 1995 WL 137508 (1995)...............................................................................................28,29 11 Santa Clara Pueblo v. Martinez, 436 U.S. 49 (1978).......................................................9,22,23,29 12 Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Comm. v. Acting Minneapolis Area Dir., BIA, 13 27 IBIA 163, 1995 WL 77152 (1995) ...............................................................................29 14 Sloan v. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, No. 2:08-CV-03070-GEB-GGH (E.D. Cal) .....................10,18 15 Stratosphere Litig. LLC v. Grand Casinos, Inc., 298 F.3d 1137 (9th Cir. 2002) ..........................13 16 Stuckey v. Weinberger, 488 F.2d 904 (9th Cir. 1973)....................................................................12 17 Uintah and Uncompahgre Descendants v. Uintah and Ouray Agency Superintendent, BIA, 51 IBIA 220, 2010 WL 160782 (2010) ..................................................................................14 18 Underwriters