Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma v. U.S.

• Decision Date: 05 September 1997
• Docket Number: Nos. 95-5055,95-5056,s. 95-5055
• Citation: 124 F.3d 1413
• Parties: 150 A.L.R. Fed. 767, 28 Envtl. L. Rep. 20,008 The CHEROKEE NATION OF OKLAHOMA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. The UNITED STATES, Defendant-Appellee. The CHOCTAW NATION OF OKLAHOMA and The Chickasaw Nation, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. The UNITED STATES, Defendant-Appellee.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Federal Circuit

Page 1413

124 F.3d 1413

150 A.L.R. Fed. 767, 28 Envtl. L. Rep. 20,008

The CHEROKEE NATION OF OKLAHOMA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. The UNITED STATES, Defendant-Appellee.

The CHOCTAW NATION OF OKLAHOMA and The Chickasaw Nation, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. The UNITED STATES, Defendant-Appellee.

Nos. 95-5055, 95-5056.

United States Court of Appeals Federal Circuit.

Sept. 5, 1997.

James Hamilton, Swidler & Berlin, Chartered, Washington, DC, argued, for plaintiffs-appellants The Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma, The Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma and The Chickasaw Nation. With him on the brief in 95-5055 were Michael L. Spafford and Wilson K. Pipestem. Of counsel on the brief was James G. Wilcoxen, Wilcoxen & Wilcoxen, Muskogee, OK.

Bob Rabon, Rabon, Wolf & Rabon, Hugo, OK, for plaintiffs-appellants The Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma and The Chickasaw Nation.

Thornton W. Field, Attorney, Environment and Natural Resources Division, Department of Justice, Washington, DC, argued, for defendant-appellee. With him on the brief for both 95-5055 and 95-5056 were Lois J. Schiffer, Assistant Attorney General, Edward J. Shawaker and John T. Stahr, Attorneys.

Before MICHEL, LOURIE, and RADER, Circuit Judges.

RADER, Circuit Judge.

These cases ^* test the limit of a trial court's discretion to stay its proceedings. Before the United States Court of Federal Claims, the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma, the Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma, and the Chickasaw Nation (the Tribes) seek damages from the United States for its alleged failure to manage certain tribal lands. Finding that it could not adjudicate the Tribes' claims until ownership in the tribal lands is conclusively fixed, the trial court indefinitely stayed its proceedings pending the prosecution of quiet title actions in a separate forum. Because the trial court acted without a pressing need to delay the suits and without a proper balancing of the countervailing interests, this court vacates the stay and remands.

I.

Between 1830 and 1837, the United States and the Tribes entered into a series of treaties granting the Tribes certain territories in Oklahoma. See generally Choctaw Nation v. Oklahoma, 397 U.S. 620, 625-27, 90 S.Ct. 1328, 1331-33, 25 L.Ed.2d 615 (1970). The Act of April 26, 1906, directed that the remainder of those lands should "be held in trust by the United States for the use and benefit of the Indians." Act of April 26, 1906, ch. 1876, § 27, 34 Stat. 137, 148 (1906); see also Choctaw Nation, 397 U.S. at 627, 90 S.Ct. at 1332-33. The land at issue in this case, portions of the Arkansas River riverbed, is tribal territory governed by the 1906 Act. See Choctaw Nation, 397 U.S. at 635-36, 90 S.Ct. at 1336-37 (concluding that the United States conveyed riverbed title to the Tribes, thereby resolving a land dispute between the Tribes and Oklahoma). Therefore, the United States is trustee of this territory for the benefit of the Tribes.

The Tribes contend that the United States, as trustee, has misappropriated and mismanaged those lands. Accordingly, on April 21, 1989, the Tribes filed the present actions in the Court of Federal Claims, alleging that the United States breached its fiduciary duties as trustee of the Tribes' interests in the riverbed lands. After being pared down by the trial court, the Tribes' claims amount to allegations that the United States wasted the Tribes' rights in oil, gas, and other minerals by failing to survey the lands, failing to evict trespassers, and generally mismanaging the natural resources. The Tribes also allege unauthorized Government use of their lands in the McClellan-Kerr Arkansas River Navigation System, a federal hydroelectric project with a dredged channel and a series of dams on a portion of the riverbed.

When the trial court issued its stay, the Cherokee Nation's amended complaint stated three counts: (1) breach of duty to manage lands for exploitation of natural gas and oil rights, (2) breach of duty to manage lands for exploitation of solid mineral rights, and (3) breach of duty to protect tribal land from unauthorized Government use. In addition, the Choctaw and Chickasaw Nations state a fourth count for issuing unauthorized rights-of-way on tribal lands.

If the facts ended here, this case would be simpler. But nature has intervened to complicate matters. In the years since 1830, the Arkansas River has meandered and changed courses, thereby obscuring the precise metes and bounds of the Tribes' riverbed lands. Thus, although it is clear that the Tribes own the Arkansas riverbed, the precise boundaries of that riverbed are not settled. As an added complexity, numerous third parties now occupy portions of what may be tribal lands.

On January 28, 1994, the trial court denied the Government's motion for summary judgment on the Tribes' claims. The trial court determined that disputed facts precluded the entry of judgment. Specifically, the trial court believed that it could not address the merits of the suits without knowing the precise metes and bounds of the riverbed lands and the legal rights of third party claimants to those lands. The parties dispute the facts on both of these issues. The trial court concluded: "title to the riverbed land must be resolved before the court can determine which, if any, land owned by the Tribes was mismanaged, not managed, or subject to unauthorized use by the defendant." Cherokee Nation et al. v. United States, Nos. 218-89 L and 630-89 L, slip op. at 7-8 (Ct.Fed.Cl. Jan. 28, 1994).

The trial court did not stop there, however. Acting sua sponte, the trial court stayed the Tribes' cases indefinitely, pending the outcome of suits to quiet title to the disputed lands. The trial court determined that, although it had the power to quiet title between the United States and the Tribes, it lacked jurisdiction to do so against potential third party claimants. The court reasoned:

[I]n the interest of justice and judicial economy, title to the Arkansas riverbed must be quieted in district court, which has such jurisdiction, between the Tribes, the government, and any other interested individuals before this court can proceed with the instant action. To avoid a premature decision by the court on the issue of defendant's breach of duty to manage, and relitigation of the action once title to the riverbed is quieted between all affected parties, common sense dictates that this court should suspend plaintiffs' case until such time as plaintiffs have quieted title to the Arkansas riverbed. The court notes for the record that counsel for defendant has informed the court that it is preparing to file the quiet title action in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma.

Id. at 8-9.

Again, a further complicating factor intervenes. Although at the time of the trial court's ruling the United States represented to the trial court that it was preparing to file quiet title actions shortly, it has not yet filed any such suits as of the date of this appeal, more than three years later. Even if all those unspecified suits were underway today, the parties agree that judgment in these actions might be decades away.

II.

The power of a federal trial court to stay its proceedings, even for an indefinite period of time, is beyond question. See Landis v. North Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254-55, 57 S.Ct. 163, 165-66, 81 L.Ed. 153 (1936). This power springs from the inherent authority of every court to control the disposition of its cases. Id. at 254, 57 S.Ct at 165. When and how to stay proceedings is within the sound discretion of the trial court. Id. at 254-55, 57 S.Ct. at 165-66; see also Gould v. Control Laser Corp., 705 F.2d 1340, 1341 (Fed.Cir.1983).

The trial court's discretion is not, however, without bounds. See Hendler v. United States, 952 F.2d 1364, 1380 (Fed.Cir.1991). A stay so extensive that it is "immoderate or indefinite" may be an abuse of discretion. See Landis, 299 U.S. at 257, 57 S.Ct. at 167 ("The stay is immoderate and hence unlawful unless so framed in its inception that its force will be spent within reasonable limits, so far at least as they are susceptible of prevision and description."); Gould, 705 F.2d at 1341 (inquiring whether a stay is "for such a protracted or indefinite period as to render its issuance an abuse of discretion"); see also Wedgeworth v. Fibreboard Corp., 706 F.2d 541, 545 (5th Cir.1983) (holding that "stay orders will be reversed when they are found to be immoderate or of an indefinite duration" (quoting McKnight v. Blanchard, 667 F.2d 477, 479 (5th Cir.1982))). Writing for the Supreme Court in Landis v. North American Company, Justice Cardozo instructed that a trial court abuses its discretion by issuing "a stay of indefinite duration in the absence of a pressing need." 299 U.S. at 255, 57 S.Ct. at 166. Ultimately, this standard requires the courts to "weigh competing interests and maintain an even balance." Id.

In deciding to stay proceedings indefinitely, a trial court must first identify a pressing need for the stay. The court must then balance interests favoring a stay against interests frustrated by the action. Overarching this balancing is the court's paramount obligation to exercise jurisdiction timely in cases properly before it.

III.

A.

The Court of Federal Claims identified only one reason for its stay--the need to quiet title to the riverbed lands before the case can proceed against the United States. The court opined that its order would avoid duplicative litigation and conserve judicial resources. For several reasons elaborated below, this court concludes that this concern falls short of the "pressing need" required when a trial court seeks to suspend its proceedings indefinitely.

First, the United States is trustee for the Tribes. See Act of April 26, 1906, ch. 1876, § 27, 34 Stat. 137, 148 (1906); see also Seminole Nation v. United States, 316 U.S. 286, 296-97, 62 S.Ct. 1049, 1054-55, 86 L.Ed. 1480 (1942) ("Under a humane and self...