Gilbert v. Weahkee
| Decision Date | 18 February 2020 |
| Docket Number | CIV. 19-5045-JLV |
| Citation | 441 F.Supp.3d 799 |
| Parties | Donna M. GILBERT, Julie Mohney, Charmaine White Face, and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. RADM Michael D. WEAHKEE, Principal Deputy Director of Indian Health Service (IHS); James Driving Hawk, Great Plains IHS Area Director; and William Barr, United States Attorney General, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of South Dakota |
Donna M. Gilbert Rapid City, SD, pro se.
Julie Mohney, Rapid City, SD, pro se.
Charmaine White Face, Rapid City, SD, pro se.
Patrick A. Lee, Rapid City, SD, for Plaintiffs.
SaraBeth Donovan, U.S. Attorney's Office, Rapid City, SD, for Defendants.
Plaintiffs, Native Americans residing in Rapid City, South Dakota, bring this action challenging the decision of the Indian Health Service ("IHS") to enter into a self-determination contract with the Great Plains Tribal Chairmen's Health Board ("the Health Board"). (Docket 5). The contract permits the Health Board to operate portions of IHS's facilities in Rapid City, including the Sioux San hospital, now known as the Oyate Health Center. Plaintiffs assert the contract violates the Fort Laramie Treaty of 1868 between the United States and the Great Sioux Nation and the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act ("ISDEAA"). They ask the court to enjoin the contract and reinstate IHS control over the Rapid City facilities. Also pending before the court are plaintiffs' motions for class certification and summary judgment. (Dockets 12 & 37).
Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint. (Docket 16). They argue plaintiffs lack standing, failed to join indispensable parties, failed to state a viable treaty claim, and do not merit injunctive relief. (Docket 17). Defendants also oppose class certification and assert summary judgment is inappropriate. (Dockets 34, 39 & 41).
As detailed below, the court finds plaintiffs do not have zone-of-interest standing to sue for relief under the ISDEAA, the Fort Laramie Treaty does not provide a private right of action under these circumstances, and the Health Board is an indispensable party that cannot be joined due to sovereign immunity. The court dismisses the complaint, denies injunctive relief and denies all other pending motions as moot.
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b), defendants challenge the court's subject matter jurisdiction, the complaint's sufficiency and joinder. The court recites the standards governing each challenge in turn.
Under Rule 12(b)(1), defendants have the right to challenge the "lack of subject-matter jurisdiction ...." Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1). "In deciding a motion under Rule 12(b)(1), the district court must distinguish between a facial attack—where it looks only to the face of the pleadings—and a factual attack—where it may consider matters outside the pleading." Croyle v. United States, 908 F.3d 377, 380 (8th Cir. 2018). "In a factual attack, the non-moving party does not have the benefit of [ Rule] 12(b)(6) safeguards." Id. (internal quotations omitted). "[T]he party invoking federal jurisdiction must prove jurisdictional facts by a preponderance of the evidence." Moss v. United States, 895 F.3d 1091, 1097 (8th Cir. 2018).
Rule 12(b)(6) allows the court to dismiss a complaint for "failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted[.]" Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). Two "working principles" underlie Rule 12(b)(6) analysis. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009). First, courts are not required to accept as true legal conclusions "couched as ... factual allegation[s]" in the complaint. Id. "[A] complaint must allege ‘more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.’ " Torti v. Hoag, 868 F.3d 666, 671 (8th Cir. 2017) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007) ). The court does, however, "take the plaintiff's factual allegations as true." Braden v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 588 F.3d 585, 594 (8th Cir. 2009). Second, the plausibility standard is a "context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial experience and common sense." Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679, 129 S.Ct. 1937. The complaint is analyzed "as a whole, not parsed piece by piece to determine whether each allegation, in isolation, is plausible." Braden, 588 F.3d at 594.
Finally, Rule 12(b)(7) permits dismissal for "failure to join a party under Rule 19." Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(7). " Rule 19(a) defines required party, and Rule 19(b) provides factors to consider to determine whether dismissal is required when joinder of such a party cannot feasibly be accomplished." Two Shields v. Wilkinson, 790 F.3d 791, 794 (8th Cir. 2015) (quotation and alteration omitted). A party is required if:
Fed. R. Civ. P. 19(a)(1). The court must join a required party if personal jurisdiction over the required party exists and joinder will not "deprive the court of subject-matter jurisdiction." Id.
" Rule 19(b) authorizes a district court to exercise its equitable powers to dismiss an action if a party regarded as ‘indispensable’ cannot be joined." Spirit Lake Tribe v. North Dakota, 262 F.3d 732, 746 (8th Cir. 2001). Rule 19(b) provides the following factors for consideration in this inquiry:
In the specific context of an immune sovereign entity that is a required party not amenable to suit, the Supreme Court has explained that the action must be dismissed if the claims of sovereign immunity are not frivolous and "there is a potential for injury to the interests of the absent sovereign."
Two Shields, 790 F.3d at 798 (quoting Republic of the Philippines v. Pimentel, 553 U.S. 851, 867, 128 S.Ct. 2180, 171 L.Ed.2d 131 (2008) ).
Defendants challenge the complaint on multiple grounds, some of which involve factual questions underpinning the court's subject matter jurisdiction. Accordingly, the court finds defendants are factually attacking the complaint and considers matters outside the pleadings.1 Croyle, 908 F.3d at 380.
On April 29, 1868, the United States entered into the Treaty of Fort Laramie with the bands of the Great Sioux Nation in an attempt to end warfare on the Northern Plains caused by an influx of American settlers onto tribal lands. 15 Stat. 635 (1868); see also United States v. Sioux Nation of Indians, 448 U.S. 371, 374-84, 100 S.Ct. 2716, 65 L.Ed.2d 844 (1980). In the treaty, the United States agreed to provide a physician to the Sioux people. 15 Stat. 635, arts. IV & XIII. The United States made similar promises to numerous tribal nations as part of its efforts to secure tribal lands for its westward expansion. See U.S. Comm'n on Civil Rights, Broken Promises: Continuing Federal Funding Shortfall for Native Americans, 61 (2018).2 These treaty provisions have evolved into a general federal obligation to provide health care to Native Americans. Id. Today, the federal government "declares that it is the policy of this Nation, in fulfillment of its special trust responsibility and legal obligations to Indians to ensure the highest possible health status for Indians and ... to provide all resources necessary to effect that policy[.]" 25 U.S.C. § 1602(1).
The modern Great Sioux Nation is composed of multiple descendant tribal nations. Three of those nations, the Oglala Sioux Tribe ("OST"), the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe ("CRST"), and the Rosebud Sioux Tribe ("RST") reside on reservations in central and western South Dakota. Many of their citizens reside in Rapid City. To serve the Native American population of Rapid City, IHS established the Rapid City Service Unit. (Docket 18-10 at p. 2). According to IHS, 79.18 percent of the Rapid City Service Unit's patients are members of the OST, CRST or RST. (Docket 18-10 at p. 2). The Interior Board of Indian Appeals ("IBIA") held in 1997 that the OST, CRST, and RST could authorize a separate tribal organization to assume IHS functions in the Rapid City Service Unit.3 Rapid City Indian Health Bd., Inc. v. Dir., Aberdeen Area Office, Indian Health Serv., IBIA 97-100-A, 4-8 (1997).4
Tribal nations located in the Dakotas, Iowa and Nebraska organized the Health Board "to make known the needs and desires of the Indian people for assistance of the [IHS] in formulating programs and establishing priorities in delivering services which it is incumbent upon the United States to provide pursuant to the solemn treaty and legal obligations to the Indian people." (Docket 18-12 at pp. 4-5, 8). The Health Board is incorporated as a nonprofit corporation under South Dakota law. Id. at pp. 1-2. The OST, CRST and RST are all members of the Health Board. Id. at pp. 4-5.
In 2018, the three tribes authorized the Health Board to enter into a self-determination contract with IHS for the purposes of assuming the functions of the Rapid City Service Unit. White Face v. Church et al., Civ. 18-5087 (Dockets 16-1 – 16-3) (...
To continue reading
Request your trial