Tanner-Brown v. Jewell
Decision Date | 27 January 2016 |
Docket Number | Civil Action No.: 14-1065 (RC) |
Citation | 153 F.Supp.3d 102 |
Parties | Leatrice Tanner-Brown, and Harvest Institute Freedman Federation, LLC, Plaintiffs, v. Sally Jewell, Secretary of the Interior, et al., Defendants. |
Court | U.S. District Court — District of Columbia |
Paul A. Robinson, Jr., Law Office of Paul Robinson, Memphis, TN, for Plaintiffs.
Stacey Bosshardt, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Patricia Miller, U.S. Department of Justice, Denver, CO, for Defendants.
RUDOLPH CONTRERAS
Plaintiffs Leatrice Tanner-Brown and the Harvest Institute Freedman Federation, LLC (“HIFF”) filed this class action against Defendants Sally Jewell, the Secretary of the United States Department of the Interior, and Kevin Washburn, the Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs at the Department of the Interior, in their official capacities seeking an accounting relating to alleged breaches of fiduciary duties concerning land allotted to the minor children of former slaves of Native American tribes. See Compl., ECF No. 1.
Defendants have filed a motion to dismiss the Complaint in its entirety on a variety of grounds. See Defs.' Mot. Dismiss, ECF No. 12; Defs.' Mem. Supp. Mot. Dismiss () , ECF No. 13. For the reasons explained below, the Court finds that Plaintiffs lack standing under Article III of the Constitution and will therefore grant Defendants' motion and dismiss the Complaint for lack of jurisdiction pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
.
Plaintiffs filed this action under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
on behalf of “all persons who are or were descendants of Freedmen minor allottees of the Five Civilized Tribes.” Compl. ¶ 13. Given the long, complex, and contentious history of the relationships between the United States, Native American Tribes, and the “Freedmen,” it is useful for the Court to begin by providing a very brief overview of the historical background in this case, as alleged by Plaintiffs, before turning to Plaintiffs' particular factual allegations and claims.
During the Civil War, the so-called “Five Civilized Tribes” (i.e., the Seminole, Cherokee, Choctaw, Creek, and Chickasaw Tribes) kept slaves and allied with the Confederacy. See Compl. ¶ 14. Beginning in 1866, following the defeat of the Confederacy, the United States entered into a series of treaties and agreements with the Five Civilized Tribes that, among other things, emancipated the Tribes' slaves and provided rights for the emancipated slaves (known as the “Freedmen”) within the Tribes. See id. ; see also, e.g., Treaty of 1866, 14 Stat. 755 (Seminole); Treaty of 1898, 30 Stat. 567 (Seminole); Treaty of 1866, 14 Stat. 785 (Creek); Treaty of 1897, 30 Stat. 496 (Creek); Treaty of 1901, 31 Stat. 861 (Creek); Treaty of 1866, 14 Stat. 799 (Cherokee); Treaty of 1866, 14 Stat. 769 (Choctaw and Chickasaw). The treaties had a general common purpose between them, but their provisions varied. See Compl. ¶ 14.
In 1898, the United States enacted The Curtis Act, 30 Stat. 495, which allotted the land of the Five Civilized Tribes. See id. ¶ 15. On May 27, 1908, the United States enacted the law that that is center to this case. See Act of May 27, 1908, 35 Stat. 312 (the “1908 Act”); Defs.' Mot. Dismiss Ex. A, ECF No. 13-1 ( ). Section 1 of the 1908 Act removed all restrictions on land allotted to certain members of the tribes, including allottees enrolled “as freedmen.” 1908 Act § 1; see also Plains Commerce Bank v. Long Family Land & Cattle Co. , 554 U.S. 316, 331, 128 S.Ct. 2709, 171 L.Ed.2d 457 (2008)
(). Plaintiffs argue that the 1908 Act did not remove restrictions from land allotted to minors. See Compl. ¶ 15 (). The heart of Plaintiffs' claim in this action lies with Section 6 of the 1908 Act, which provides in relevant part cited by Plaintiffs:
1908 Act § 6. Plaintiffs' claim is premised on their argument that Section 6 imposed a specific fiduciary duty on the Secretary of the Interior to account for any royalties derived from any leases on land allotted to minor Freedmen. See, e.g., Compl. ¶ 15; id. ¶ 24; id. ¶¶ 31–33; id. ¶ 36.
Plaintiffs generally allege that there was “[a] pervasive system of corruption and racism ... in Indian Country during the period following the discovery of oil and Oklahoma statehood.” Id. ¶ 25. They claim that land was allotted to Freedmen in an attempt to overcome “protections designed to prevent illiterate and uneducated allottees from being swindled by unscrupulous persons.” Id. They claim that the Department of the Interior, through district agents presumably acting pursuant to the 1908 Act, recovered money on behalf of minor allottees.1 See id. ¶ 30.
Plaintiff Leatrice Tanner-Brown, who seeks to represent the putative class of Freedmen descendants, alleges that her grandfather, George Curls, was the son of former Cherokee slaves and was enrolled as a Cherokee Freedman pursuant to the Dawes Act when he was five years old. See Compl. ¶ 9. She further alleges that Mr. Curls received allotment deeds of 40 acres and 20 acres located in Nowata County, Oklahoma from the Cherokee tribe on December 5, 1910 when he was 13 years old. See id. ; id. ¶¶ 25–26. She alleges that Mr. Curls's allotted land was located “in the midst of oil rich Cherokee Country,” id. ¶ 25, and “[n]orth of the lucrative Alluwe Oil Field in the vicinity of the Cherokee Shallow Sands Oil Fields where oil was located a mere thirty-six feet below the surface in 1904,” id. ¶ 26. See also id. ¶ 28 ( ). She alleges that the Department of the Interior, however, has no record of any royalties derived from any lease on Mr. Curls's allotments. See id. ¶ 24.
The only other named Plaintiff, HIFF, which also seeks to represent the putative class, describes itself as a company “formed for the specific purpose of seeking redress through the courts to compel the United States to perform obligations owed under federal law to Freedmen.” Id. ¶ 10. HIFF states that its members, none of whom it specifically identifies, are “persons with African and Native American ancestry.” Id.
In this action, Plaintiffs claim that Defendants breached the fiduciary duties purportedly imposed by Section 6 of the 1908 Act and seek: (a) certification of this action as a class action under Rule 23(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
;2 (b) a declaration that Defendants owed fiduciary duties to minor Freedmen under the ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Wright v. United States
... ... 5. Most significantly, ... Plaintiff cannot rely on an alleged injury to an ancestor in ... order to establish standing. Tanner Brown v. Jewell , ... 153 F.Supp.3d 102, 110 (D.D.C. 2016) (“Courts have ... rejected the notion ... that a plaintiff can suffer an ... ...
-
Wright v. United States
... ... 5. Most significantly, ... Plaintiff cannot rely on an alleged injury to an ancestor in ... order to establish standing. Tanner Brown v. Jewell , ... 153 F.Supp.3d 102, 110 (D.D.C. 2016) (“Courts have ... rejected the notion ... that a plaintiff can suffer an ... ...
-
Narragansett Indian Tribe v. Pollack
...constitutional standing, the Court does not reach the remainder of [the Federal] Defendant['s] arguments.” Tanner-Brown v. Jewell, 153 F.Supp.3d 102, 107 (D.D.C. 2016), aff'd sub nom. Tanner-Brown v. Zinke, 709 Fed.Appx. 17 (D.C. Cir. 2017). “The ‘irreducible constitutional minimum of stand......
-
Anglin v. United States
...for purposes of constitutional standing simply by virtue of an [alleged] injury suffered by her ancestors." Tanner-Brown v. Jewell, 153 F. Supp. 3d 102, 110 (D.D.C. 2016). Perhaps most notable is the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals' decision in In re African-American Slave Descendants Liti......