Newtok Vill. v. Patrick
| Decision Date | 25 February 2021 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 4:15-cv-00009 RRB |
| Parties | NEWTOK VILLAGE, and NEWTOK VILLAGE COUNCIL, Plaintiffs, v. ANDY T. PATRICK; JOSEPH TOMMY; and STANLEY TOM, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Alaska |
(Docket 65)
On April 21, 2015, Plaintiffs filed a Petition for Injunctive Relief against Defendants.1 Plaintiffs included Newtok Village, a Federally recognized Indian Tribe, and the Newtok Village Council, the current governing body of Newtok Village. Defendants were three individuals who resided in the community of Newtok, who were previous members of the Council. In late 2012, "a tribal election dispute arose, out of which two groups emerged each claiming to be the bona fide tribal governing body of the Tribe."2
The Bureau of Indian Affairs ("BIA") got involved in late 2012 when it became apparent that, in connection with several contracts arising under the Indian Self-Determination Act ("ISDA"),3 the BIA received "various emails and documents relating to the conflict," and determined that it had "a duty to determine the authorized representatives of the governing body of Newtok."4 The BIA made it clear that its policy was to allow the Tribe to resolve internal tribal conflicts, but it also recognized that it had to determine which tribal governing body the BIA would officially recognize for contracting purposes.5
Following its investigation, the BIA determined that tribal membership had clearly and legitimately requested a vote; that the October 12, 2012, meeting and election appeared to have been organized in response to that request; and that the majority of voting members cast their ballots in favor of the New Council.6 Moreover, the BIA "viewed the video which appears to confirm the voting process" that yielded a vote in favor of the "New Council."7 But the BIA noted that on November 4, 2012, the Old Council claimed reelection via a separate vote, and refused to cede leadership.8
Ultimately, at general membership meeting on June 14, 2013, the Old and New Council members agreed to hold a vote as to whether to confirm the Old or New Council, so that the Tribe could move forward. Records reflect 52 votes in favor of confirming the New Council, and 30 votes in favor of confirming the Old Council.9 However, the Old Council again refused to cede leadership.10
On July 11, 2013, based on its review of the evidence, the BIA opined that a leadership vacuum would be detrimental to the best interests of the Tribe, as multiple government funding agencies needed to be able to do business with an authorized tribal governing body in light of the urgent need to physically relocate the village site. It also found no justification for recognizing the Old Council, and therefore officially recognized the New Council as the legitimate governing body of Newtok Village.11
The Old Council appealed to the Interior Board of Indian Appeals, effectively staying the BIA's recognition of the New Council.12 But on August 21, 2013, the Director of the Division of Community and Regional Affairs, Department of Commerce, Community and Economic Development, State of Alaska, issued a letter decision recognizing the New Council as the legitimate governing body of Newtok Village for the purposes of administering all state grants and contracts with the Tribe, a decision which was "final and unappealable."13 As a result, on May 27, 2014, the Interior Board ofIndian Appeals lifted the stay, making the July 11, 2013, decision fully effective, and rendering the New Council the federally recognized governing body of Newtok Village.14
Thereafter, the New Council, now known simply as the Newtok Village Council, became Plaintiffs in this matter. The 2015 Complaint alleged that after the BIA's May 27, 2014, decision recognizing the New Council, Defendants continued to make repeated "representations to various federal, state and private agencies seeking money and misrepresenting that they are the legitimate governing body of Newtok Village," and "have retained records[,] equipment and other property belonging to Newtok Village."15 After unsuccessfully attempting to obtain such records, equipment, and other property in order to carry out contractual obligations of the Tribe, the Newtok Village Council filed this Complaint for injunctive relief, seeking to enjoin Defendants from misrepresenting that they were the legitimate governing body, and directing Defendants to turn over all records, equipment, and property owned by Newtok Village to the Newtok Village Council.16
The Clerk of Court entered Default on July 21, 2015, after Defendants, who had been properly served, failed to plead or otherwise defend this action.17 This Court found that it had jurisdiction over the subject matter of the Complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (Federal Question) and § 1362 (Indian Tribe Plaintiff), and entered Default Judgment and a permanent injunction on November 4, 2015.18 Plaintiffs subsequentlymoved for attorney fees and costs, which the Court granted in the amount of $6,533.57 plus interest.19
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1331, "[t]he district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States." Original jurisdiction involving Indian Tribes was specifically articulated in 28 U.S.C. § 1362, which identified jurisdiction "of all civil actions, brought by any Indian tribe or band with a governing body duly recognized by the Secretary of the Interior, wherein the matter in controversy arises under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States."
Although this Court found that it had jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and § 1362, Defendants now argue that Plaintiffs failed to meet the statutory requirements of either provision because the Complaint failed to present a federal question on its face.20 Accordingly, Defendants argue that this Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over this matter when it was brought in 2015, and that any judgment therefore is void and should be vacated.21
In response, Plaintiffs argue that this motion is untimely, that the Court properly exercised its subject matter jurisdiction, and that Defendants' motion is moot because Defendants already have substantially fulfilled the obligations of this Court'sjudgment regarding tribal records, tribal funds, and tribal property, so vacating the judgment would have no effect other than allowing the Old Council to resume falsely asserting its authority.22
"Subject matter jurisdiction can never be waived or forfeited,"23 and a litigant can raise a court's lack of subject matter jurisdiction at any time in the same civil action, including "post-trial."24 Accordingly, timeliness of this motion is not an issue.
The only issue is whether this matter "arises under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States." Defendants argue that Plaintiffs' Complaint did not identify a federal question on its face.25 Rather, they assert that the Complaint alleges "fruits of internal tribal disputes" and state conversion claims, and argue that "the fact that the BIA made a decision involving the Newtok Tribe and contracting does not create a federal question."26
Defendants argue that Plaintiffs' allegations regarding removal of village records "constitute [state law] claims for conversion and do not arise under federal law for federal jurisdiction purposes."27 While Defendants may or may not be correct, the Courtneed find only one source of jurisdiction, which would allow it to assert jurisdiction over other non-federal claims.
The Court is unpersuaded by Defendants' argument that the "main purpose of the Petition was to have the District Court settle and enforce the Newtok Tribe's internal leadership dispute."28 Defendants characterize the default judgment entered by the Court as "turning on determining which group is the legitimate governing body of the tribe,"29 which is outside of this Court's jurisdiction. This matter was not before this Court to settle a "tribal election dispute." That dispute previously had been addressed by the Tribe, as later determined by the BIA when the BIA stated that it "accepts the assertion of the members of the New Council that they constitute the Traditional Council which has the authority to act as the governing body of Newtok Village . . . ."30 The issue of tribal leadership, therefore, had been resolved, arguably on multiple occasions, before this lawsuit was filed. The BIA's official determination that the New Council was the governing body recognized for purposes of contracting under the ISDA was asserted on the face of the Complaint. For this Court's purposes, the BIA's official recognition of tribal leadership was not a contested issue.
Defendants argue that the fact that the BIA made a decision involving a Tribe and its entitlement to federal contracting does not create a federal question.31 Plaintiffs respond that it is the federal enforcement of the tribal judgment of the 2012 election dispute that is a federal question.32 But Plaintiffs' reliance on the Ninth Circuit's 2019 decision in Coeur d'Alene Tribe v. Hawks, is misplaced. The Coeur d'Alene decision specifically concluded "the Tribe's action to enforce the Tribal Court's judgment against a nonmember presents a substantial issue of federal law," and that its decision was specifically limited to those facts.33
More persuasive is Plaintiffs' argument that the Complaint presented federal questions pursuant to the ISDA. In 1975, the United States Congress enacted the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act.34 The ISDA ...
To continue reading
Request your trial