Carlson v. Tulalip Tribes of Washington, 73--2428
| Decision Date | 03 February 1975 |
| Docket Number | No. 73--2428,73--2428 |
| Citation | 510 F.2d 1337 |
| Parties | John R. CARLSON et al., Plaintiffs, John R. Carlson and Eleanor C. Carlson, his wife, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. The TULALIP TRIBES OF WASHINGTON, a Federal Corporation, Defendant-Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
Stimson Bullitt (argued), of Riddell, Williams, Voorhees, Ivie & Bullitt, Seattle, Wash., for plaintiffs-appellants.
Lewis A. Bell (argued), of Bell, Ingram, Johnson & Level, Everett, Wash., for defendant-appellee.
Before CHOY and GOODWIN, Circuit Judges, and BURNS, * District Judge.
John and Eleanor Carlson appeal the district court's dismissal of their suit to quiet title to certain waterfront lands.
The Tulalip Indian Reservation was created by the 1855 Treaty of Point Elliott. In 1888, the United States conveyed certain lots (herein called the 'subject tract') within the Reservation to Mowich Sam, a Tulalip Indian. In 1961, the Carlsons, heirs of Mowich Sam, brought a partition suit regarding the subject tract in Washington State Courts. By virtue of the resulting decree, the Carlsons obtained fee simple title to the subject tract. The tract map includes a meander line which, at the time of the survey, more or less followed an estuarial shoreline.
In 1966, the Carlsons entered into a land sale contract to convey the subject tract to plaintiff Shorewood Park.
In 1969, the Tulalip Tribal Corporation made a claim of ownership to tidelands within the Reservation. Portions of these tidelands are contiguous with the subject tract, extending to the level of ordinary high water. Because of possible conflict between the record boundary of the subject tract and the actual ordinary high-water line, the Carlsons and Shorewood Park alleged that the tribal claim clouded the subject tract's title. As a practical matter, the claim precludes them from fulfilling their agreement, because they cannot get title insurance.
Pursuant to defendant Tulalip Tribes' motion for Fed.R.Civ.P. 19(a) 1 joinder the district court ordered the Carlsons to attempt to obtain from the United States consent to be sued. After the United States declined to so consent, the Carlsons' complaint was dismissed. The dismissal was based upon Fed.R.Civ.P. 19(b), 2 and the Carlsons' failure to join the United States, an indispensable party to the suit under Rule 19(a) standards.
Though the Tulalip Tribe has been incorporated into the 'Tulalip Tribes of Washington, a Federal Corporation' pursuant to 25 U.S.C. § 477, legal title to the unallotted Reservation lands remains in the United States. See Department of the Interior Solicitor Opinion No. 36181, February 21, 1956. The Carlsons admitted this fact at oral argument. Because the United States has fee title to unallotted Reservation lands, the dispute involves the fixing of a boundary between lands of the United States and the lands claimed by the plaintiffs. No decision made in an action in which the United States is not a party can bind the United States. The United States is therefore a necessary party to any resolution of this boundary dispute.
Further, the United States is a necessary party to any action in which the relief sought might interfere with its obligation to protect Indian lands against alienation. Jackson v. Sims, 201 F.2d 259, 262 (10th Cir. 1953); 7 Wright and Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure: Civil § 1617, at 176; 3A Moore's Federal Practice 19.09(8), at 2325. We conclude that the United States is a person described in Rule 19(a)(1), (2).
Because the United States has refused to be joined as a party, the litigation could not properly proceed. Fed.R.Civ.P. 19(b).
Although Congress has authorized the United States to be joined as a party defendant in certain property disputes without particularized consent, this authority specifically excludes Indian lands in which title is held by the United States. 28 U.S.C. § 2409a.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Oneida Indian Nation of NY v. Cty. of Oneida
...is an indispensable party. See Minnesota v. United States, 305 U.S. 382, 59 S.Ct. 292, 83 L.Ed. 235 (1939); Carlson v. Tulalip Tribes of Washington, 510 F.2d 1337 (9th Cir. 1975); Nicodemus v. Washington Water Power Co., 264 F.2d 614 (9th Cir. 1959). However, these cases all involve attempt......
-
Bourgeois v. United States
...under 28 U.S.C. § 2409a to restricted Indian lands in which title is held by the United States. See Carlson v. Tulalip Tribes of Washington, 510 F.2d 1337, 1339 (9th Cir. 1975). Section 2409a specifically * * * This section does not apply to trust or restricted Indian lands, nor does it app......
-
Big Sandy Rancheria Enters. v. Bonta
...1966). The federal government is also empowered to hold lands in trust for § 17 incorporated tribes. See Carlson v. Tulalip Tribes of Wash. , 510 F.2d 1337, 1339 (9th Cir. 1975). And, as Moe held, the United States is empowered to "seek[ ] to enjoin the enforcement of a state tax law" to vi......
-
State of Fla., Dept. of Business Regulation v. U.S. Dept. of Interior
...no action may be brought to quiet title to lands that the United States holds in trust for an Indian tribe. Carlson v. Tulalip Indian Tribes, 510 F.2d 1337, 1339 (9th Cir.1975). In Block v. North Dakota ex rel. Bd. of Univ. & School Lands, 461 U.S. 273, 103 S.Ct. 1811, 75 L.Ed.2d 840 (1983)......
-
FUNDAMENTALS OF CONTRACTING BY AND WITH INDIAN TRIBES
...(Cal. App. 1985). [37] Fletcher v. United States, 116 F.3d 1315 (10th Cir. 1997). [38] 28 U.S.C. § 2409a. See Carlson v. Tulalip Tribes, 510 F.2d 1337 (9th Cir. 1975). [39] Santa Clara Pueblo v. Martinez, 436 U.S. 49, 58 (1978). [40] A waiver of immunity by a section 17 corporation does not......