Cayuga Indian Nation Of N.Y. v. Governor Of The State Of N.Y., : 5:80-CV-0930

• Decision Date: 10 January 2011
• Docket Number: No. : 5:80-CV-0930,No. : 5:80-CV-0960 (NPM),: 5:80-CV-0930,: 5:80-CV-0960 (NPM)
• Parties: CAYUGA INDIAN NATION OF NEW YORK, et al,. Plaintiffs, and THE SENECA-CAYUGA TRIBE OF OKLAHOMA and THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Intervenors, v. GOVERNOR OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of New York

CAYUGA INDIAN NATION OF NEW YORK, et al, . Plaintiffs, and

THE SENECA-CAYUGA TRIBE OF OKLAHOMA and

THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Intervenors,

v.GOVERNOR OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, et al., Defendants.

No. : 5:80-CV-0930

No. : 5:80-CV-0960 (NPM)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

Dated: January 10, 2011

APPEARANCES:

FRENCH, ALCOTT LAW FIRM

For plaintiff, Cayuga Indian Nation of New York

JENNER, BLOCK LAW FIRM

For plaintiff, Cayuga Indian Nation of New York

OF COUNSEL:

Daniel J. French, Esq.

Lee Alcott, Esq.

Jeremy M. Creelan, Esq.

MARISCAL WEEKS LAW FIRM

For plaintiff-intervenor, Seneca-Cayuga

Tribe of Oklahoma

Glenn M. Feldman, Esq.

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

For plaintiff-intervenor, United States of America

Steven Miskinis, Esq.

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

For State Defendants The Capitol

David B. Roberts, Esq.

Neal P. McCurn, Senior District Judge

Order

Presently before the court is a motion by the Cayuga Indian Nation of New York ("the Nation") for relief from "the judgment entered in this Court on September 26, 2005" pursuant to Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Dkt. No. 974. Plaintiff-intervenor, the Seneca-Cayuga Tribe of Oklahoma joins the motion and the State of New York, on behalf of all defendants to this action, opposes.

The purported basis of the pending motion is a change in the law as set forth in Oneida Indian Nation fo New York v. New York, 500 F.Supp. 2d 128 (N.D.N.Y. 2007), wherein the district court allowed non-possessory claims to go forward. On consent of the parties, this court stayed its decision on the Rule 60(b) motion in this case pending resolution of an appeal of the Oneida decision to the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the district court in Oneida insofar as it dismissed possessory claims but reversed with respect to the non-possessory claims. See Oneida Indian Nation of New York v. County of Oneida, 617 F.3d 114 (2d Cir. 2010). On December 16, 2010, the Court of Appeals denied petitions for rehearing and petitions for rehearing en banc. The mandate of the Court of Appeals was filed in the district court on January 7, 2011, and thereafter the case was dismissed by judgment of the district court on January 10, 2011.

Accordingly, the pending Rule 60(b) motion for relief from judgment, filed at Dkt. No. 974 in the lead case, 5:80-cv-0930, is hereby DENIED. The letter motion filed at Dkt. No. 306 in case number 5:80-cv-0960 is DENIED as moot.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: January 10, 2011

Syracuse, New York

Neal P. McCurn

Senior U.S. District Judge