Nw. Band of the Shoshone Nation v. Idaho
| Decision Date | 19 January 2022 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 4:21-cv-00252-DCN |
| Parties | NORTHWESTERN BAND OF the SHOSHONE NATION, a federally recognized Indian tribe on its own behalf and as parens patriae on behalf of its members, Plaintiff, v. State of IDAHO; Greg Wooten, Department of Fish and Game Enforcement Bureau Chief; Ed Schriever, Department of Fish and Game Director, and Does 1-10, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Idaho |
Ryan B. Frazier, Kirton & McConkie, Salt Lake City, UT, for Plaintiff.
Kathleen Elizabeth Trever, Owen Hugh Moroney, Idaho Office of Attorney General, Boise, ID, for Defendants State of Idaho, Greg Wooten, Ed Schriever.
Pending before the Court is Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. Dkt. 7. Having reviewed the record and briefs, the Court finds that the facts and legal arguments are adequately presented. Accordingly, in the interest of avoiding further delay, and because the Court finds that the decisional process would not be significantly aided by oral argument, the Court will decide the Motion without oral argument. Dist. Idaho Loc. Civ. R. 7.1(d)(1)(B).
Upon review, and for the reasons set forth below, the Court GRANTS the Motion.
The Shoshone people once roamed over eighty million acres in the present states of Wyoming, Colorado, Utah, Idaho, and Nevada. The large tribe had a scattered organization, with an estimated fourteen different bands with various chiefs, sub-chiefs, and headmen. During the Civil War, Congress appropriated money for negotiating a treaty with the Shoshone to secure safe passage for transportation and communication lines through Shoshone territory. Due to the scattered nature and large size of Shoshone territory, the United States government entered into a variety of treaties with different Shoshone bands in a piecemeal fashion.
The treaty that concerns the Court today is the Fort Bridger Treaty of 1868 (the "1868 Treaty"). In that treaty, Chief Washakie ceded the Shoshone Tribal Territory to the United States in exchange for, among other things, two reservations and certain hunting1 rights ("Hunting Rights"). The Hunting Rights are codified in Article 4 of the 1868 Treaty and outline that:
The Indians herein named agree, when the agency house and other buildings shall be constructed on their reservations named, they will make said reservations their permanent home, and they will make no permanent settlement elsewhere; but they shall have the right to hunt on the unoccupied lands of the United States so long as game may be found thereon, and so long as peace subsists among the whites and Indians on the borders of the hunting districts.
State of Idaho v. Warner , Idaho Case Nos. CR-98-00014 and CR-98-00015, at 4 (Idaho Dist. Ct. 2000).
After signing the 1868 Treaty, many members of the Shoshone Nation gathered to the Fort Hall and Wind River Reservations. Nw. Bands of Shoshone Indians v. United States , 324 U.S. 335, 345 n. 7, 65 S.Ct. 690, 89 L.Ed. 985, reh'g denied 324 U.S. 890, 65 S.Ct. 1010, 89 L.Ed. 1437 (1945) (cleaned up). Plaintiff Northwestern Band of the Shoshone Nation ("Northwestern Band"), by its own admission, did not relocate to either reservation. Dkt. 1, at 9. The Northwestern Band adapted to an agrarian way of life and settled in northern Utah, the area in which it still resides today. The Northwestern Band is a distinct sovereign Indian tribe with its own Tribal office and Tribal Code.
The Northwestern Band believes that it possesses certain Hunting Rights, while the State of Idaho claims it does not. The Northwestern Band and its members disputed this issue in state court in 1997 in State v. Warner . Idaho Case Nos. CR-98-00014 and CR-98-00015 (Idaho Dist. Ct. 2000). This issue arose again in state court in 2019 when Wyatt R. Athay and Shanelle M. Long, both members of the Northwestern Band, were cited for hunting without tags issued by the State of Idaho (Case Nos. CR-04-19-0756; CR-04-19-0757). Mr. Athay and Ms. Long asserted their Hunting Rights, and the parties agreed to stay the matter pending the filing of this action, wherein the Northwestern Band seeks a declaration that it has Hunting Rights because of the 1868 Treaty.
The Northwestern Band filed a complaint on June 14, 2021, commencing the instant case. Dkt. 1. The Northwestern Band sued the State of Idaho; Greg Wooten, Enforcement Bureau Chief of the Idaho Department of Fish and Game; Ed Schriever, Director of the Idaho Department of Fish and Game; and any unknown defendants (indicated as Does 1–10) (collectively "Idaho Defendants"). Dkt. 1. Governor Brad Little of the State of Idaho was originally named as a defendant, but the parties stipulated to his dismissal early on. Dkt. 6. On July 28, Idaho Defendants filed the instant Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Fed R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1), 12(b)(6), and 12(b)(7). Dkt. 7. The Northwestern Band opposes said Motion. Dkt. 18. The motion is now ripe for adjudication.
When subject matter jurisdiction is challenged pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), the plaintiff bears the burden of persuasion. Indus. Tectonics, Inc. v. Aero Alloy , 912 F.2d 1090, 1092 (9th Cir. 1990) (citing McNutt v. Gen. Motors Acceptance Corp. , 298 U.S. 178, 189, 56 S.Ct. 780, 80 L.Ed. 1135 (1936) ). A party who brings a Rule 12(b)(1) challenge may do so by referring to the face of the pleadings or by presenting extrinsic evidence. See White v. Lee , 227 F.3d 1214, 1242 (9th Cir. 2000) ().
If the jurisdictional attack is facial, the challenger asserts that the allegations contained in a complaint are insufficient on their face to establish federal jurisdiction. Safe Air for Everyone v. Meyer , 373 F.3d 1035, 1039 (9th Cir. 2004). When considering this type of jurisdictional attack, a court must consider the allegations of the complaint to be true and construe them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Love v. United States , 915 F.2d 1242, 1245 (9th Cir. 1989).
"By contrast, in a factual attack, the challenger disputes the truth of the allegations that, by themselves, would otherwise invoke federal jurisdiction." Meyer , 373 F.3d at 1039. In resolving a factual attack on jurisdiction, the court need not presume the truthfulness of the plaintiff's allegations and may review evidence beyond the complaint without converting the motion to dismiss into a motion for summary judgment. Id.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) permits a court to dismiss a claim if the plaintiff has "fail[ed] to state a claim upon which relief can be granted." "A Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal may be based on either a ‘lack of a cognizable legal theory’ or ‘the absence of sufficient facts alleged under a cognizable legal theory.’ " Johnson v. Riverside Healthcare Sys., LP , 534 F.3d 1116, 1121 (9th Cir. 2008) (citation omitted). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires a complaint to contain "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief," in order to "give the defendant fair notice of what the ... claim is and the grounds upon which it rests." See Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly , 550 U.S. 544, 554, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007). "This is not an onerous burden." Johnson , 534 F.3d at 1121.
A complaint "does not need detailed factual allegations," but it must set forth "more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements." Twombly , 550 U.S. at 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955. The complaint must also contain sufficient factual matter to "state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Id. at 570, 127 S.Ct. 1955.
In deciding whether to grant a motion to dismiss, the court must accept as true all well-pleaded factual allegations made in the pleading under attack. Ashcroft v. Iqbal , 556 U.S. 662, 663, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009). A court is not, however, "required to accept as true allegations that are merely conclusory, unwarranted deductions of fact, or unreasonable inferences." Sprewell v. Golden State Warriors , 266 F.3d 979, 988 (9th Cir. 2001).
In cases decided after Iqbal and Twombly , the Ninth Circuit has continued to adhere to the rule that a dismissal of a complaint without leave to amend is inappropriate unless it is beyond doubt that the complaint could not be saved by an amendment. See Harris v. Amgen, Inc. , 573 F.3d 728, 737 (9th Cir. 2009).
Rule 12(b)(7) allows for dismissal if an absent party—required to be joined under Rule 19—cannot be joined. In deciding a motion brought under Rule 12(b)(7), the allegations contained in the Complaint are accepted as true, and all reasonable inferences arising therefrom are drawn in favor of the plaintiff. Paiute–Shoshone Indians of Bishop Community of Bishop Colony, Cal., v. City of Los Angeles , 637 F.3d 993, 996 n. 1 (9th Cir. 2011).
The State of Idaho asserts that the Eleventh Amendment bars the claims raised against it. The Eleventh Amendment states that, "[t]he Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State." U.S. Const. Amend. XI. The Eleventh Amendment prohibits a federal court from entertaining a civil rights lawsuit brought by a citizen against a state unless that state waives its sovereign immunity. Hans v. Louisiana , 134 U.S. 1, 16-18, 10 S.Ct. 504, 33 L.Ed. 842 (1890). The State of Idaho has not waived its sovereign immunity in this case, nor has the Northwestern Band claimed the State has. Therefore, the claims against the State of Idaho are dismissed.
Defendants Wooten and Schriever acknowledge that the claims against them are...
To continue reading
Request your trial