Motah v. United States, 9769.
| Decision Date | 30 October 1968 |
| Docket Number | No. 9769.,9769. |
| Citation | 402 F.2d 1 |
| Parties | Lee MOTAH and Horace Noyabad, Appellants, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit |
Jack L. Freeman, Oklahoma City, Okl., for appellants.
Roger P. Marquis, Atty., Dept. of Justice (Clyde O. Martz, Asst. Atty. Gen., B. Andrew Potter, U. S. Atty., Givens L. Adams, Asst. U. S. Atty., and Frank B. Friedman, Atty., Dept. of Justice, were with him on the brief), for appellee.
Before LEWIS, SETH and HICKEY, Circuit Judges.
This appeal is taken from a final order of the District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma dismissing the plaintiffs-appellants' complaint and action for lack of jurisdiction.
Plaintiffs are members of the Comanche Tribe of Indians residing in Oklahoma. According to their complaint, a tribal election was held on November 19, 1966, to determine whether the Comanche Tribe should have a constitution separate and apart from the Kiowa and Apache Tribes in Oklahoma. The election was conducted by the Area Director for the Bureau of Indian Affairs pursuant to 25 U.S.C. § 4761 and resulted in 493 Comanche Indians voting for a separate constitution and 483 voting against. Thereafter, plaintiffs filed a contest of the election with the Area Director alleging that a number of Comanche Indians were wrongfully deprived of their right to vote and that if such Indians had been allowed to vote that the outcome would have been affected. The Area Director denied plaintiffs' claim and appeals therefrom were in turn denied by the Commissioner of Indian Affairs and the Secretary of the Interior. Plaintiffs then sought an evidentiary hearing in the district court alleging jurisdiction to exist by "virtue of the provisions of the Constitution of the United States and laws and treaties enacted thereunder."
The district court properly dismissed the action for lack of jurisdiction of both person and subject matter. The action stems from an internal controversy among Indians over tribal government, a subject not within the jurisdiction of the court as a federal question. Prairie Band of Pottawatomie Tribe of Indians v. Udall, 10 Cir., 355 F.2d 364, cert. denied, 385 U.S. 831, 87 S.Ct. 70, 17 L.Ed.2d 67; Prairie Band of Pottawatomie Tribe of Indians v. Puckkee, 10 Cir., 321 F.2d 767; Dicke v. Cheyenne-Arapaho Tribes, Inc., 10 Cir., 304 F.2d 113; Martinez v. Southern Ute Tribe, 10 Cir., 273 F.2d 731, cert. denied, 363 U.S. 847, 80 S.Ct. 1623, 4 L.Ed.2d 1730; Native American Church of North America v. Navajo Tribal Council, 10 Cir., 272 F.2d 131; Martinez v. Southern Ute Tribe of Southern Ute Reservation, 10 Cir., 249 F.2d 915, cert. denied, 356 U.S. 960, 78 S.Ct. 998, 2 L.Ed.2d 1067. Nor is there any express statutory authority to exercise judicial control over the United States in a case of this nature. The principle that "the United States, as sovereign is immune from suit save as it consents to be sued," United States v....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mitchell v. United States
...Cir. 1967); Twin Cities Chippewa Tribal Council v. Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, 370 F.2d 529, 531-32 (8th Cir. 1967); Motah v. United States, 402 F.2d 1, 2 (10th Cir. 1968); Vicenti v. United States, 470 F.2d 845, 847-48 (10th Cir. 1972), cert. dismissed, 414 U.S. 1057, 94 S.Ct. 561, 38 L.Ed.2......
-
State of Washington v. Udall
...less is the Administrative Procedure Act to be deemed an implied waiver of all governmental immunity from suit."; Motah v. United States, 402 F.2d 1 (10th Cir. 1968); Chournos v. United States, 335 F.2d 918 (10th Cir. 1964); L. Jaffe, Judicial Control of Administrative Action 372 (1965) (Ad......
-
Schlafly v. Volpe
...Chippewa Tribe, 370 F.2d 529, 532 (8th Cir. 1967). 13 State of Washington v. Udall, 417 F.2d 1310 (9th Cir. 1969). 14 Motah v. United States, 402 F.2d 1 (10th Cir. 1968). 15 Without any mention of sovereign immunity, the Court "A threshold question — whether petitioners are entitled to any ......
-
National Helium Corporation v. Morton
...assertion that the Administrative Procedure Act does not act as a waiver of sovereign immunity, in and of itself. Motah v. United States, 402 F.2d 1 (10th Cir. 1968), contra Scanwell Laboratories, Inc. v. Shaffer, 137 U.S.App.D. C. 371, 424 F.2d 859, 874 (1970). Here, however, Congress itse......
-
Idaho Sporting Congress v. Thomas and sovereign immunity: federal facility nonpoint sources, the APA, and the meaning of "in the same manner and to the same extent as any nongovernmental entity."
...v. Morton, 445 F.2d 1207, 1212-14 (4th Cir. 1971); Washington v. Udall, 417 F.2d 1310, 1320 (9th Cir. 1969); Motah v. United States, 402 F.2d 1, 2 (10th Cir. 1968); Twin Cities Chippewa Tribal Council v. Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, 370 F.2d 529, 532 (8th Cir. 1967); and Cyrus v. United States......