Sunteți pe pagina 1din 3

Case 2:12-cv-01748-TLN-CMK Document 72-2 Filed 10/14/14 Page 1 of 3

1
2

KENNETH R. WILLIAMS, State Bar No. 73170


Attorney at Law

980 9th Street, 16th Floor


Sacramento, CA 95814

Telephone: (916)543-2918

Attorneyfor Plaintiffs
No Casino in Plymouth and
Citizens Equal Rights Alliance

6
7

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

NO CASINO IN PLYMOUTH and CITIZENS


12

EQUAL RIGHTS ALLIANCE,

13

Plaintiffs,

14
15

PLAINTIFFS' STATEMENT OF
UNDISPUTED FACTS IN SUPPORT OF
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

v.

SALLY JEWELL, in her official capacity as

Secretary of the U.S. Department of the


16

Case No. 2:12-cv-01748-TLN-CMK

Interior, et al.
Defendants.

17

Date: TBD
Time: TBD
Place: Courtroom No. 2

Judge: Honorable Troy L. Nunley

18
19

20
21

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56, Plaintiffs submit the following statement

of undisputed facts in support of their motion for summary judgment.


1. The lone Band of Miwok Indians filed its Complaint for Declaratory Relief, Quiet Title,

22

Breach of Trust and to Compel Agency Unlawfully Withheld in lone Band et al. v. Harold

23

Burris et al (USDC ED Cal. No. CIV-S-90-0993) ("lone Band v. Burris") against

24

individual lone Indians and the United States on August 1, 1990. (ECF 62; RJN No, 1.)

25

2. The United States filed its Answer in lone Band v. Burris on September 28, 1990 and
26
27
28

denied all the contentions of the lone Band including the contention that it was a federally
recognized tribe. (ECF 62; RJN No. 2.)
PLAINTIFFS' STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS IN SUPPORT OF MOTION

FORSUMMARY JUDGMENT (Case No. 2:12-cv-01748 JAM CNK)

Case 2:12-cv-01748-TLN-CMK Document 72-2 Filed 10/14/14 Page 2 of3


3. The lone Indians filed their Answer in lone Band v. Burris on October 22, 1990 and also

denied that the lone Band is a federally recognized tribe. (ECF 62; RJN No. 3.)
4. The United States made the following statement in its Status Report in lone Band v.
Burris: "The [United States] government denies that the lone Band of Miwok Indians has

ever been a federally-recognized tribe." (ECF 62; RJN No. 5.)

5. The lone Indians made the following statement in its Status Report in lone Band v. Burris:
"Defendants [lone Indians] deny that the lone Band of Miwok Indians has ever been a

9
10

11

federally-recognized tribe." (ECF 62; RJN No. 6.)


6. The U.S. filed a Motion for Summary Judgment in lone Band v. Burris in February 1991
(AR00691-AR00732.) The lone Indians joined that motion. (ECF 62; RJN No. 8.)

12

7. Michael L. Lawson, Ph.D. submitted a declaration in favor of the United States motion.
13

14

(AR00732-AR00738 and AR020823-AR020900 (with exhibits). Dr. Lawson concluded

15

that: "the United States has never extended federal recognition to the lone Band of

16

Miwok Indians as an Indian tribe." (Id.)

17
18

8. Arthur G. Barber, an employee of the BIA, also filed adeclaration in favor of the United
States motion. (AR020901-AR020904.) Mr. Barber told the lone Indians that the lone

19

Band was not a federally recognized tribe and that they should apply for recognition under
20

Part 83 to receive federal services from the BIA. (Id.)


21

~~

9. The lone Band opposed the United States motion for summary judgment and the United

23

States filed a reply brief. (AR00738-AR00767.) The United States reasserted its

24

contention that the lone Band was not a federally recognized tribe. (Id.)

25

10. The United States filed aSupplemental Brief in Support ofits Motion for Summary
Judgment (ECF 62; RJN No. 12) and a supporting declaration (ECF 62; RJN No. 13) in

27

March 1991. The stated purpose of this supplemental brief was to bringto the Court's

28

PLAINTIFFS' STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS IN SUPPORT OF MOTION

FORSUMM ARY JUDGMENT (Case No. 2:12-cv-01748 JAM CNK)

Case 2:12-cv-01748-TLN-CMK Document 72-2 Filed 10/14/14 Page 3of 3


attention additional information that the lone Band knew that they were not afederally
recognized tribe as early as 1973. (Id.)

11. Pursuant toJudge Karlton's request, in October 1991, the United States submitted a
second supplemental brief on whether or not the Part 83 regulations were the exclusive

means to obtain tribal recognition. (AR020910-AR020922.) The United States argued

that, although the Part 83 process was not the exclusive means to obtain tribal recognition,
itwas the only administrative means for a tribe to obtain federal recognition. (Id.)
12. In its reply brief the United States confirmed that "The government's position has been
and remains that the acknowledgement regulations [Part 83] constitute the exclusive

administrative means of obtaining full .. . federal tribal recognition." (AR020923AR020928; emphasis in the original.)

16

"Plaintiffs' [lone Band's] argument appears to be that these non-regulatory mechanisms


for tribal recognition demonstrate that 'the Secretary may acknowledge tribal entities

1'

outside the regulatory process,' .. . and that the court, therefore, should accept jurisdiction

over plaintiff claims compelling such recognition. I cannot agree. Because plaintiffs
cannot demonstrate that they are entitled to federal recognition by virtue of any of
the above mechanisms, and because they have failed to exhaust administrative
remedies by applying for recognition through the BIA acknowledgement process, the
United States motion for summary judgment on these claims must be GRANTED."
(Id at 17; emphasis added.)

19

20

22

Dated: October 14,2014

23

Respectfully Submitted,
24

25

26
27

Is/ Kenneth R. Williams

KENNETH R. WILLIAMS

Attorney for Plaintiffs

No Casino in Plymouth and

Citizens Equal Rights Alliance

28

PLAINTIFFS' STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS IN SUPPORT OF MOTION


FORSUMMARY JUDGMENT (Case No. 2:I2-cv-01748 JAM CNK)

S-ar putea să vă placă și