Siemion v. Stewert
| Decision Date | 24 April 2012 |
| Docket Number | CV 11-120-BLG-RFC-CSO |
| Parties | NELVETTE SIEMION, DBA/White Buffalo Ranch, Plaintiff, v. VIANNA STEWERT, DEBBIE SCOTT, CLARA HUGS, TY TEN BEAR, PATRICIA BUGAS-HARRIS, MARTIN ANSETH, WILLIAM HE DOES IT, PHOEBE KNAPP-WARREN, PAUL WARREN, SAM REDDING, LELAND WALKING BEAR, KELLY DEE PASSES, CEDRIC BLACK EAGLE, LARRY TOBACCO, WILLIAM F. SNELL III PRETTY SHIELD, CODY WILHELM, CHAZ BENDS, VERNON HILL, PETE MOLINA, DIANE CABRERA, and PARTIES UNKNOWN, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Montana |
Plaintiff Nelvette Siemion ("Siemion"), appearing pro se, filed her Amended Complaint on January 30, 2012, listing 14 counts. Am. Cmplt. (Court Doc. 32). This action stems from three generalallegations that one or more of the named Defendants wrongfully (1) deprived Siemion of Crow Tribal land leases to which she was entitled; (2) rounded up, seized, and impounded about 200 head of Siemion's bison causing her to incur penalties and costs to recover them; and (3) killed, butchered, and distributed the meat from three of Siemion's bison bulls. The claims and the defendants against whom Siemion asserts them are discussed in more detail below.
The following motions, listed in the order filed, are now ripe:
The Court notes that, on March 26, 2012, Siemion filed a document styled "Plaintiff[']s Opposition To Defendant, Pete Molina's Reply Brief in Support of Motion to Dismiss Received by Plaintiff on March 6, 2012, and Plaintiff[']s Motion for Hearing." Court Doc. 55. Also, on April 11, 2012, Siemion filed a document styled "Plaintiff[']s Opposition to Individual Federal Defendant's [sic], Debbie Scott, Ty Ten Bear, Clara Hugs and Vianna Stewart's Reply Brief In Support of Motion To Substitute United States, Motion to Dismiss and for Summary Judgment, and Plaintiff[']s Motion for Hearing." Court Doc.56. To each of these filings, Siemion attached several unauthenticated exhibits.
Local Rule 7.1(d)(1) allows for only one response and one reply to any motion filed. Local Rule 7.1(d)(1)(D) specifically provides that "[n]o further briefing is permitted without prior leave." Siemion has not sought and has not been granted leave to file additional briefs or exhibits respecting any of the pending motions. Accordingly, the Court has not considered them herein.
Also, in both filings, Siemion requested a hearing on the motions that were the subject of these supplemental filings. The requests for hearings will be denied because in this Court's opinion, a hearing will not aid the Court's decision. See Rule 78(b); Partridge v. Reich, 141 F.3d 920, 926 (9th Cir. 1998).
Having considered the parties' briefs and submissions respecting the remaining motions, the Court enters the order and findings and recommendations discussed below.
The procedural background is detailed in the record. See Orderfiled Jan. 10, 2012 (Court Doc. 29); Order filed Feb. 1, 2012 (Court Doc. 33). The Court repeats it here only as necessary to explain this ruling.
The factual background is rather complicated. The allegations concern distinct events that sometimes overlap, span several years, and involve multiple parties. In attempting to place Siemion's claims into a coherent context, the Court compiled the factual background that follows from: (1) Siemion's Amended Complaint; (2) the Statement of Undisputed Facts (Court Doc. 25) and documents that the Federal Defendants filed in conjunction with an earlier motion, including the Administrative Record for Siemion's two administrative appeals to the Interior Board of Indian Appeals (Court Doc. 22); and (3) multiple exhibits attached to the original Complaint filed in this action and organized by a "Table of Contents of Exhibits Supporting Plaintiffs [sic] Claims." See Clerk of Court's docket notation for original Complaint ).
Siemion is a member of the Crow Tribe. She and her husband, George Siemion, have been in business since 1969 as the White Buffalo Ranch raising bison on the Crow Reservation. Court Doc. 25 at ¶ 6 (citing Administrative Record ("AR"), Siemion Affidavit ("Siemion Aff.") at 105-07). Siemion's bison have grazed on ranch property and on leased individual and tribal grazing lands. Id.
On March 22, 2006, at the Crow Tribe's request and on its behalf, the Bureau of Indian Affairs ("BIA") advertised the lease sale on 194 tracts of farming and grazing land owned by the Crow Tribe. Id. at ¶ 7. These tracts included some land subject to leases held by Siemion that had expired or were about to expire. Id.
The advertisement stated, in relevant parts:
Id. at ¶¶ 8-10 (citing AR at 706-08).
On April 14, 2006, an addendum was made to the advertisement providing that all bids must meet fair rental value. Id. at ¶ 11 (citing AR at 703). This addendum also advertised 24 additional tracts for lease and, consistent with the original advertisement, set April 24, 2006, as the deadline for bids. Id.
On April 24, 2006, Siemion submitted bids and bid bonds for 11 of the original 194 tracts and bids for 10 of the 24 tracts subsequently added to the lease sale. Id. at ¶ 14 (citing AR at 126-28). She bid $2.50 per acre. Id. Also on April 24, 2006, the BIA transmitted the bids to the Crow Tribe. Id. at ¶ 15 (citing AR at 607-700).
On May 5, 2006, the BIA received a bid sheet dated May 3, 2006, from Defendant William He Does It, who submitted bids for leases for 8 of the 24 subsequently added tracts. He Does It bid $5.00 per acre.Siemion's April 24, 2006 bid sheet included bids on the same 8 tracts. BIA copied He Does It's late-submitted bid sheet to the Tribe. Id. at ¶ 16 (citing AR at 700).
Siemion has claimed that it was not until May 2008 that she first learned from the BIA Superintendent that the Crow Tribe had not awarded leases to her for the tracts on which she bid. Id. at ¶ 17 (citing AR at 106). On May 28, 2008, Siemion appealed to the Regional Director the BIA Superintendent's decisions to award leases for the tracts to lessees other than Siemion. She asserted that the Regional Director should reverse the BIA Superintendent's decision, declare the leases void, and advertise them anew. Id. at ¶ 18.
On July 30, 2008, the BIA Regional Director rejected Siemion's appeal explaining that the Crow Tribe has the exclusive right to grant or award leases on Tribal lands under 25 C.F.R. § 162.207. The Regional Director also explained that the BIA does not have authority to monitor or ensure that the Tribe follows its own laws or ordinances regarding the granting or awarding of leases on Tribal lands. Id. at ¶ 21 (citing AR ...
To continue reading
Request your trial