Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
1
2
Telephone: (916)543-2918
Attorneyfor Plaintiffs
No Casino in Plymouth and
Citizens Equal Rights Alliance
6
7
10
11
13
Plaintiffs,
14
15
PLAINTIFFS' STATEMENT OF
UNDISPUTED FACTS IN SUPPORT OF
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
v.
Interior, et al.
Defendants.
17
Date: TBD
Time: TBD
Place: Courtroom No. 2
18
19
20
21
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56, Plaintiffs submit the following statement
22
Breach of Trust and to Compel Agency Unlawfully Withheld in lone Band et al. v. Harold
23
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
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
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
12
7. Michael L. Lawson, Ph.D. submitted a declaration in favor of the United States motion.
13
14
15
that: "the United States has never extended federal recognition to the lone Band of
16
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
~~
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
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
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
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
23
Respectfully Submitted,
24
25
26
27
KENNETH R. WILLIAMS
28