Miami Tribe of Oklahoma v. U.S., CIV.A.03-2220-DJW.
| Decision Date | 22 June 2005 |
| Docket Number | No. CIV.A.03-2220-DJW.,CIV.A.03-2220-DJW. |
| Citation | 374 F.Supp.2d 934 |
| Parties | MIAMI TRIBE OF OKLAHOMA, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES of America, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Kansas |
Kip A. Kubin, Bottaro, Morefield & Kubin, LC, Kansas City, MO, Christopher J. Reedy, Colantuono & Associates LLC, Leawood, KS, for Plaintiff.
David D. Zimmerman, Melanie D. Caro, Office of United States Attorney, Kansas City, KS, for Defendants.
Plaintiff Miami Tribe of Oklahoma ("Miami Tribe") has filed this action pursuant to the Administrative Procedures Act,1 seeking judicial review of the Department of the Interior's Bureau of Indian Affairs' ("BIA") decision denying James E. Smith's application to gift a portion of his interest in restricted land. Smith seeks to convey one-third of his 3/38 undivided interest in a thirty-five acre allotment known as the Maria Christiana Miami Reserve No. 35 to Miami Tribe. The parties have consented to the exercise of jurisdiction by the United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). For the reasons set forth below, the Court reverses the BIA's denial of Smith's request to transfer a portion of his interest to Miami Tribe.
James E. Smith ("Smith"), a member of the Miami Tribe, holds a 3/38 restricted undivided interest in the Maria Christiana allotment, Miami No. 35 ("Miami Reserve"), located in Miami County, Kansas. He desires to gift transfer one-third of his 3/38 undivided interest to Miami Tribe. Smith inherited his 3/38 undivided interest in the Miami Reserve through his tribal ancestor Maria Christiana DeRome, who was originally granted a restricted fee patent for restricted allotment of 200 acres dated December 15, 1859.2 The 1859 Miami Reserve land patent issued to the infant Maria Christiana DeRome provided that the lands "shall never be sold or conveyed without the consent of the Secretary of the Interior, for the time being."
Over time, the original 200-acre allotment has been reduced to its present size of approximately 35 acres. After Maria Christiana DeRome died in 1860, her parents sold 120 of the original 200 acres with the approval of the Secretary of the Interior. In 1986, Midwest Investment Properties, Inc. filed a partition action on a claim of adverse possession to ownership of the unrestricted interest in the remaining 80 acres of the allotment. The Court ordered the partitioning of the 80 acres into two tracts consisting of 45 acres to Midwest Investment Properties, Inc. and 35 acres to the Indian owners in restricted fee title.3
In 1995, the BIA denied a request by Earlene Smith Downs, one of Smith's relatives and owner of an interest in the Miami Reserve property, to convey by gift one percent of her undivided interest to Miami Tribe.4 In denying her request, the BIA noted that Ms. Downs was not a member of Miami Tribe and she did not have a special relationship or circumstance with Miami Tribe warranting the gift conveyance.
In 2001, Smith similarly sought authorization from the Secretary of the Interior to convey by gift one-third of his interest in Miami Reserve to Miami Tribe. He completed an Application for Gift Deed of Indian Land dated August 17, 2001 to obtain the necessary approval from the Secretary of the Interior for the gift conveyance.5 His stated reason for the proposed conveyance was that he wished to do something for the benefit of Miami Tribe and its members.
On January 10, 2002, the BIA, through Acting Director Dan Deerinwater, denied Smith's application for gift conveyance. In declining to approve the transfer, the BIA accepted that a special relationship exists between Smith, as a member of Miami Tribe, and Miami Tribe. Notwithstanding its recognition of the existence of a special relationship between Smith and Miami Tribe, the BIA found that no special circumstances justified a gift of Smith's interest to Miami Tribe. The BIA determined that Smith's conveyance of a portion of his interest would add to, rather than eliminate, the further fractionation of individually-owned Indian lands and would not serve to consolidate fractional interests and ownership into usable parcels. It further found that the proposed conveyance would not enhance tribal sovereignty or promote tribal self-sufficiency and self-determination any better than what could be accomplished through Miami Tribe's approved business development lease of Miami Reserve. The BIA concluded that the proposed conveyance would not be in the best long-term interest of Smith or the other allotment owners and that the conveyance would conflict with the Federal government's policy on fractionated interests as set out by the Indian Land Consolidation Act Amendments of 2000.6
In February 2002, Smith appealed the BIA's initial decision to the Interior Board of Indian Appeals ("Appeals Board"). The Appeals Board subsequently granted Miami Tribe's motion to intervene. Following the submission and consideration of briefs on the matter, the Appeals Board affirmed the BIA's decision in Smith v. Acting Eastern Oklahoma Regional Director.7
On May 5, 2002, Miami Tribe filed its Complaint in which it asserted three Counts. Count I of the Complaint seeks judicial review of the BIA's decision under the Administrative Procedures Act ("APA").8 Count II alleges that Defendants breached their fiduciary and trust duties to Miami Tribe. Count III alleges that Defendants have violated substantive and procedural due process and property rights of Miami Tribe.
Early in this case, the parties agreed to bifurcate Count I (APA, Injunctive Relief, and Violation of 25 U.S.C. § 2216) of Plaintiff's Complaint from Counts II (Breaches of Trust) and III (Constitutional Violations) and to proceed first with Count I.9 The Court's Scheduling Order provides that the scheduling issues with regard to Counts II and III will be taken up after the Court rules on the parties' briefs regarding the review of the administrative agency decision.
The parties' original APA briefing submitted to the Court focused primarily on whether the BIA correctly applied 25 C.F.R. §§ 152.23 and 152.25(d). Neither party focused on whether the 2000 amendments to the Indian Land Consolidation Act ("ILCA"), particularly 25 U.S.C. § 2216(b), applied to Smith's application for approval to transfer a percentage of his interest in Miami Reserve to Miami Tribe. The Court thereafter requested additional briefing from the parties to address this issue. The parties submitted the requested briefing and the Court is now ready to rule.
Under the APA, "[a] person suffering legal wrong because of agency action, or adversely affected or aggrieved by agency action within the meaning of a relevant statute, is entitled to judicial review thereof."10 But the "ultimate standard of review is a narrow one."11
The APA authorizes the reviewing court to "compel agency action unlawfully withheld" and to "hold unlawful and set aside agency actions, findings, and conclusions" that the court finds to be "arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law."12 Under an APA review, "an agency's action must be upheld, if at all, on the basis articulated by the agency itself."13 The Tenth Circuit has identified the "essential function of agency review as an analysis of"(1) whether the agency acted within the scope of its authority, (2) whether the agency complied with prescribed procedures, and (3) whether the action is otherwise arbitrary, capricious or an abuse of discretion."14
In order to determine whether the agency acted arbitrarily, capriciously, abused its discretion, or acted not in accordance with the law, the reviewing court must determine whether the agency's explanation for its decision is based on a consideration of the relevant facts and whether a clear error of judgment occurred.15 The inquiry into the agency's decision should be a substantial inquiry that is searching and careful; however, the reviewing court has no power to substitute its own judgment for that of the administrative agency.16
An agency decision should be set aside if the court finds that:
the agency relied on factors which Congress has not intended for it to consider, entirely failed to consider an important aspect of the problem, offered an explanation for its decision that runs counter to the evidence before the agency, or is so implausible that it could not be ascribed to a difference in view or the product of agency expertise.17
In making its decision, the BIA applied the following two regulations dealing with the sale, exchange, or conveyance of Indian trust or restricted lands: 25 C.F.R. §§ 152.23 and 152.25(d). The regulation setting forth the procedure for applications for a sale, exchange, or gift of restricted Indian land interests is contained in 25 C.F.R. § 152.23, which provides:
Applications for the sale, exchange or gift of trust or restricted land shall be filed in the form approved by the Secretary with the agency having immediate jurisdiction over the land. Applications may be approved if, after careful examination of the circumstances in each case, the transaction appears to be clearly justified in the light of the long-range best interest of the owner or owners or as under conditions set out in § 152.25(d).18
25 C.F.R. § 152.25(d) addresses conveyances of trust or restricted land for less than the appraised fair market value or no consideration. It provides:
With the approval of the Secretary, Indian owners may convey trust or restricted land, for less than the appraised fair market value or for no consideration when the prospective grantee is the owner's spouse, brother, sister, lineal ancestor of Indian blood or lineal descendant, or when some other special relationship exists between the grantor and grantee or special circumstances exist that in the opinion of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
MIAMI TRIBE OF OK v. US
...Tribe's request for judicial review under the APA from its claims based upon breach of trust and constitutional violations. On June 22, 2005, 374 F.Supp.2d 934, the Court issued its Memorandum and Order reversing the BIA's January 11, 2002 decision that denied Smith's application for gift c......
-
Miami Tribe of Okla. v. U.S.
...we rejected as a basis for the tribe's claim of jurisdiction over the Reserve in Miami IV. Compare Miami IV, 249 F.3d at 1230–31 with 374 F.Supp.2d at 945. In Miami IV, we examined the tribe's recent activity within the Reserve, including the adoption of landowners as members, but stated No......