Keweenaw Bay Indian Community v. U.S., 2:94-CV-262.

• Decision Date: 27 August 1996
• Docket Number: No. 2:94-CV-262.,2:94-CV-262.
• Citation: 940 F.Supp. 1139
• Parties: KEWEENAW BAY INDIAN COMMUNITY, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES of America, U.S. Department of the Interior, and U.S. Department of Justice, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Western District of Michigan

940 F.Supp. 1139

KEWEENAW BAY INDIAN COMMUNITY, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES of America, U.S. Department of the Interior, and U.S. Department of Justice, Defendants.

No. 2:94-CV-262.

United States District Court, W.D. Michigan, Southern Division.

August 27, 1996.

Joseph P. O'Leary, Baraga, MI, Konrad D. Kohl, Kohl, Harris & Peters, P.C., Metamora, MI, for plaintiff.

Edward J. Passarelli, U.S. Dept. of Justice, Washington, DC, for U.S. defendants.

Keith D. Roberts, Assistant Attorney General, Lottery & Racing Division, Lansing, MI, for State intervenor.

OPINION

McKEAGUE, District Judge.

On February 5, 1996, the Court entered an opinion and order awarding summary judgment and declaratory judgment to the plaintiff. 914 F.Supp. 1496. In essence, the Court's opinion concluded that the class III gaming conducted by the Keweenaw Bay Indian Community (the "Tribe") was authorized by the Tribal-State Compact between the Tribe and the State of Michigan, and therefore lawful. Defendants United States of America, U.S. Department of Interior and U.S. Department of Justice (collectively the "federal defendants") have filed a motion for reconsideration or, in the alternative, to alter or amend the judgment pursuant to Fed. R.Civ.P. 59(e). The State of Michigan, an intervening defendant,¹ has also filed a motion to alter or amend.

I. RULE 59(e) MOTIONS

Motions to alter or amend are entrusted to the Court's sound discretion. Huff v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 675 F.2d 119, 122 (6th Cir.1982). In general, a judgment may be altered or amended for one of three reasons: (1) because of an intervening change in the controlling law;² (2) because evidence not previously available has become available; or (3) necessity to correct a clear error of law or prevent manifest injustice. Javetz v. Bd. of Control, Grand Valley State University, 903 F.Supp. 1181, 1190 (W.D.Mich.1995).

A Rule 59(e) motion, however, is not intended as a vehicle to relitigate previously considered issues. Keweenaw Bay Indian Community v. State of Michigan, 152 F.R.D. 562, 563 (W.D.Mich.1992), aff'd 11 F.3d 1341 (6th Cir.1993) (citing E.E.O.C. v. Argent Ind., 746 F.Supp. 705, 706 (S.D.Ohio 1989)). In addition, a Rule 59(e) motion should not be utilized to submit evidence which could have been previously submitted in the exercise of reasonable diligence. Id. (citing Weyerhaeuser Corp. v. Koppers Co., 771 F.Supp. 1406, 1419 (D.Md.1991)). Where a moving party attempts to obtain a reversal of a judgment by offering the same arguments previously presented, the "proper vehicle for relief is an appeal" rather than a motion to alter or amend. Id. (citing Dana Corp. v. United States, 764 F.Supp. 482, 489 (N.D.Ohio 1991)).

II. FEDERAL DEFENDANTS' MOTION

The federal defendants' motion requests the Court to reconsider its order and opinion granting plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and granting plaintiff declaratory relief. The arguments raised by the federal defendants in support of their motion are essentially the same arguments which were presented in support of the federal defendants' cross motion for summary judgment. The federal defendants' motion is not based on a change in controlling law and the federal defendants do not assert that any of the operative facts have changed since the issues were submitted to the Court.

The federal defendants nevertheless contend that this motion is proper because the opinion and order should be reconsidered to correct a clear error of law. The federal defendants contend that: (1) the Court erroneously relied on the codified version of § 20 of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act ("IGRA") rather than the enacted version of the Public Law; (2) resort to legislative history was unnecessary and the legislative history supports the federal defendants' position in any event; (3) the class III gaming conducted by the Tribe is regulated by federal regulatory agencies; and (4) the State of Michigan is an indispensable party to this litigation.

A. Reliance on the Codified Version of § 20 of IGRA

The federal defendants' contend that the Court erred in utilizing the codified version of § 20 of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act,³ which contains the phrase "gaming regulated by this chapter," rather than "gaming regulated by the Act." Although the federal defendants are correct that the codified and enacted versions of the IGRA contain different wording, this has no effect upon the Court's decision. IGRA, codified as 25 U.S.C. § 2701 et seq., is Chapter 29 of Title 25 of the United States Code; although the Act contains many sections and subsections, it is comprised of only one chapter. As such, in the Court's opinion of February 5, 1996, "chapter" was understood to mean the whole of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act.⁴

The federal defendants then attempt to utilize the irrelevant semantical distinction between "Act" and "chapter" to recapitulate their argument that 25 U.S.C. § 2719 is applicable to the class III gaming at issue in this litigation. The federal defendants misconstrue this Court's opinion as stating that IGRA does not regulate any class III gaming. At no time did this Court determine that class III gaming is never regulated by IGRA. Certainly, class III gaming is regulated by IGRA because class III gaming is prohibited by IGRA in the absence of a Tribal-State Compact. Once a Tribal-State Compact that meets all the requirements provided in IGRA⁵ is created, however, class III gaming conducted on the land subject to the Compact is properly regulated by that Compact. The class III gaming at issue is conducted on land subject to a valid Compact between the Tribe and the State of Michigan. Thus, the Court correctly determined that the gaming at issue in this litigation is regulated by the Compact, and the federal defendants' contention that the Court erroneously relied on the codified language rather than the enacted language provides no basis to alter or amend the judgment.

B. Whether Resort to Legislative History was Unnecessary

The federal defendants next contend that resort to legislative history was unnecessary because the language of the statute is plain and unambiguous. The federal defendants rely on Supreme Court precedent holding that when the language of a statute is plain and unambiguous, "the sole function of the courts is to enforce it according to its terms."⁶ United States v. Ron Pair Enter., Inc., 489 U.S. 235, 241, 109 S.Ct. 1026, 1030, 103 L.Ed.2d 290 (1989) (quoting Caminetti v. United States, 242 U.S. 470, 485, 37 S.Ct. 192, 194, 61 L.Ed. 442 (1917)); accord Connecticut Nat'l Bank v. Germain, 503 U.S. 249, 253-254, 112 S.Ct. 1146, 1149, 117 L.Ed.2d 391 (1992) ("We have stated time and again that courts must presume that a legislature says in a statute what it means and means in a statute what it says there.... When the words of a statute are unambiguous, then this first canon is also the last: `judicial inquiry is complete.'").

In this case, the Court's ruling was based upon the plain and unambiguous language of the IGRA. As the Court's opinion noted, 25 U.S.C. § 2710(d) addresses the regulation of class III gaming on Indian lands, and provides that class III gaming is lawful if certain conditions are met. The Court concluded that all of the conditions were satisfied and that the class III gaming at issue in this case was "fully subject to the terms and conditions of the Tribal-State Compact" as provided in 25 U.S.C. § 2710(d)(2)(C). Because the Compact clearly provided for the class III gaming at issue, the Court found that the gaming was lawful and that the gaming was no longer regulated by the IGRA within the meaning employed by § 2719. The Court did not rely on legislative history to reach this conclusion. Instead, the Court relied on the plain language of the statute to reach its conclusion and merely noted that the Court's interpretation was also supported by the legislative history.⁷ See 914 F.Supp. at 1502-03. Accordingly, the federal defendants' contention that resort to legislative history was unnecessary provides no basis to alter or amend the judgment.

C. Regulatory Agencies' Oversight of Class III Gaming

The federal defendants' argument that the powers of the National Indian Gaming Commission ("NIGC") and the Chairman of the NIGC extend to class III gaming such that the class III gaming at issue in this litigation is subject to the provisions of 25 U.S.C. § 2719 has already been considered and rejected by the Court. Thus, the appropriate forum for reasserting this argument is on appeal rather than in a motion for reconsideration.

D. The State of Michigan as an Indispensable Party

The federal defendants' final argument is that the Court's construction of the Tribal-State Compact between the Tribe and the State of Michigan implicates the rights of an indispensable party, the State of Michigan. The question of whether the Compact permits class III gaming on the land on which the Tribe currently conducts such gaming was an issue in this case from its inception. Since the filing of its complaint, the Tribe sought relief declaring their gaming activities lawful on the basis of the terms of the Compact. The federal defendants clearly knew that the language of the Compact was at issue in this litigation. In fact, the Tribe and the federal defendants addressed the language of the Compact at the hearing on the cross-motions for summary judgment, and the Court engaged in lengthy discourse with counsel on this issue during that hearing.

If the Court's consideration of the Compact language renders the State an indispensable party, presumably the federal defendants would have sought to require the plaintiff to add the State at an earlier stage in the litigation. The federal defendants elected, however, to wait for a decision, and now seek to claim that the State is essential after receiving a construction of the Compact with which they disagree. The State, on the other hand, admits that it was...