Dawson v. Springer, (2003)

• Court: Coquille Indian Tribal Court
• Writing for the Court: DON OWEN COSTELLO CHIEF JUDGE
• Decision Date: 26 June 2003
• Docket Number: C02-001
• Citation: Dawson v. Springer (Coquille Indian Tribal Ct. 2003)
• Parties: GARY R. DAWSON, PLAINTIFF, v. TERRY SPRINGER, DEFENDANT

GARY R. DAWSON, PLAINTIFF, v. TERRY SPRINGER, DEFENDANT

No. C02-001

Coquille Indian Tribal Court

June 26, 2003

OPINION AND ORDER

DON OWEN COSTELLO CHIEF JUDGE

This matter came before the Court on June 17, 2003 at 3:00 PM for oral argument on Defendant's Motion to Strike Pleading Titled: "Plaintiff Amended Motion for Civil Hearing" ^[1] and on Defendant's Affirmative Defenses to the First Amended Complaint, which are set forth at paragraph II, page 2, parts 2-5 (lines 5-18) of Defendant's Answer and Affirmative Defenses to 1st Amended Complaint. Plaintiff and Defendant appeared personally and Defendant's attorney, Scott Crowell appeared by telephone.

The Court finds that Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint fails to state a claim upon which this Court can grant relief, allows the Motion to Strike and paragraph II, page 2 part 5 of the Affirmative Defenses, and orders that Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint be dismissed with prejudice and without right to replead.

Plaintiff seeks damages and other relief from Defendant, alleging that Defendant wrongfully suspended Plaintiff's gaming license and terminated him from his job at the casino, and denied him due process at an administrative appeal hearing held at Plaintiff's request. Plaintiff asserts that the Indian Civil Rights Act (ICRA) and the Coquille Evidence Code (CEC) authorize this Court to take jurisdiction over his claims.

Neither law grants this Court jurisdiction over the case. The ICRA provides that the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall be available to any person in a court of the United States to test the legality of detention by order of an Indian tribe. 24 U.S.C. Section 1303. A court of the United States is a Federal Court. This is a Tribal Court. The ICRA does not provide Tribal Court remedies. Some Tribes have chosen to grant subject matter jurisdiction in their Courts over claims arising under the ICRA by legislatively adopting the Act. ^[2] The Coquille Indian Tribe has not done so. This Court can find no authority authorizing it to recognize an ICRA remedy without legislative authority from the Coquille Tribal Council.

Plaintiff cites CEC as grounds for jurisdiction. The CEC applies to certain actions and proceedings in this Tribal Court. CITC 630.100.1 and 630.100.2. It does not apply to administrative hearings. Failure to adhere to its provisions in the commission hearing would not confer jurisdiction on this Court.

Because the Court construes pleadings liberally "...with a view of substantial justice between the parties", CITC 620.120.4(a), it has searched to find some other jurisdictional basis besides those designated by Plaintiff. Employment rights are important interests ^[3] which some Tribes allow ^[4] to be tested in their Trial and Appellate Courts. ^[5] This Court is unable to find a constitutional or legislative basis under the law of the Coquille Indian Tribe allowing it to take jurisdiction over this case, and absent such authority is constitutionally prohibited from fashioning such a remedy. The Court finds therefore, that Plaintiff has not alleged ultimate facts sufficient to constitute a claim upon which relief can be granted by this Court.

Now therefore,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint be and hereby is stricken and dismissed in its...