United States v. 43.47 Acres of Land

• Decision Date: 30 September 2012
• Docket Number: Civil Nos. 2:85–cv–01078 (AWT), 3:98–cv–01113 (AWT), 3:00–cv–00820 (AWT).
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Connecticut
• Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. 43.47 ACRES OF LAND, MORE OR LESS, SITUATED IN the COUNTY OF LITCHFIELD, TOWN OF KENT, et al., Defendants. Schaghticoke Tribal Nation, Plaintiff, v. Kent School, et al., Defendants. Schaghticoke Tribal Nation, Plaintiff, v. United States Of America, et al., Defendants.

896 F.Supp.2d 151

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff,

v.43.47 ACRES OF LAND, MORE OR LESS, SITUATED IN the COUNTY OF LITCHFIELD, TOWN OF KENT, et al., Defendants.

Schaghticoke Tribal Nation, Plaintiff,

v.Kent School, et al., Defendants.

Schaghticoke Tribal Nation, Plaintiff,

v.United States Of America, et al., Defendants.

Civil Nos. 2:85–cv–01078 (AWT), 3:98–cv–01113 (AWT), 3:00–cv–00820 (AWT).

United States District Court,

D. Connecticut.

Sept. 30, 2012.

John B. Hughes, U.S. Attorney's Office, New Haven, Harles D. Ray, David A. Reif, Robert J. Gallo, II, William H. Bright, Jr., Eric Watt Wiechmann, McCarter & English, Eric L. Sussman, Day, Berry & Howard, Hartford, Karen L. Wagshul, Cummings & Lockwood, Stamford, CT, Kristina Hendrickson Allaire, Mirick O'Connell, Demallie & Lougee, Worcester, MA, for Plaintiffs.

Charles D. Ray, Eric Watt Wiechmann, McCarter & English, James R. Fogarty, Leland C. Selby, Fogarty, Cohen, Selby & Nemiroff, Greenwich, Allan B. Taylor, David J. Elliott, Eric L. Sussman, Day, Berry & Howard, Hartford, Karen L. Wagshul, Cummings & Lockwood, Stamford, Jeffrey B. Sienkiewicz, Michael S. McKenna, Sienkiewicz, McKenna & Sienkiewicz, New Milford, CT, Kristina Hendrickson Allaire, Mirick, O'Connell, Demallie & Lougee, Worcester, MA, for Defendants.

RULING ON MOTIONS FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS

ALVIN W. THOMPSON, District Judge.

This is a consolidated action composed of three cases: United States v. 43.47 Acres of Land, et al., Docket 2:85–cv–1078 (AWT) (“ USA v. 43.47 Acres ”); Schaghticoke Tribal Nation v. Kent School Corporation, Inc., et al., Docket 3:98–cv–1113(AWT) (“ STN v. Kent School ”); and Schaghticoke Tribal Nation v. United States, et al., Docket 3:00–cv–820 (AWT) (“ STN v. USA ”). A common claim made by the Schaghticoke Tribal Nation (the “STN”) in each case is that the STN is an Indian tribe that has been dispossessed of Indian land without the approval of Congress in violation of the Indian Nonintercourse Act, 25 U.S.C. § 177 (the “Nonintercourse Act”).

The United States and the land claim defendants, i.e., Kent School Corporation, Inc. (“Kent School”), the Town of Kent and Connecticut Light and Power Company (“CL & P”), move for judgment on the pleadings in the consolidated case. They argue that the STN is collaterally estopped from litigating the issue of whether the STN is an Indian tribe due to a determination by the Bureau of Indian Affairs (“BIA”) that the STN is not an Indian tribe. They further argue that the STN, therefore, lacks standing to pursue a claim under the Nonintercourse Act and the ability to establish a violation of the Nonintercourse Act.

For the reasons set forth below, the motions for judgment on the pleadings are being granted. Because the court finds that the STN cannot establish a prima facie violation of the Nonintercourse Act, it does not reach the issue of standing.

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

In all three matters, the STN asserts land claims pursuant to the Nonintercourse Act, which provides in relevant part that “[n]o purchase, grant, lease, or other conveyance of lands, or of any title or claim thereto, from any Indian nation or tribe of Indians, shall be of any validity in law or equity, unless the same be made by treaty or convention entered into pursuant to the Constitution.” 25 U.S.C. § 177.

The lead case, USA v. 43.47 Acres, is a condemnation action involving the federal government's attempt to acquire title to two parcels of land (Parcel 265–2, which is composed of 43.47 acres, and Parcel 265–33, which is composed of 83.52 acres) under its powers of eminent domain. The STN has intervened, claiming to own the land on the basis that it was wrongfully conveyed in violation of the Nonintercourse Act.

The two other cases in this consolidated action, STN v. Kent School and STN v. USA, are land claim actions filed by the STN. The named defendants are parties who have a current ownership interest in parcels claimed by the STN. The STN alleges that between 1801 and 1911 those parcels were sold or transferred by the State of Connecticut in violation of the Nonintercourse Act. The STN argues that those transfers are void, illegal and of no effect, and that Kent School, the Town of Kent and CL & P should be ejected and the land should be returned to the STN.

An issue that is common to all three cases is whether the STN exists as an Indian tribe under federal law. If the STN does not qualify as an Indian tribe, it cannot establish a prima facie case of a violation of the Nonintercourse Act. See Golden Hill Paugussett Tribe of Indians v. Weicker, 39 F.3d 51, 56 (2d Cir.1994) (setting forth the elements of a prima facie case based on a violation of the Nonintercourse Act). To obtain federal acknowledgment of tribal status, a group may petition the BIA, a bureau within the Department of the Interior to whom regulation of Indian matters has been delegated. During the federal acknowledgment process, the BIA utilizes the Department of the Interior's procedures and policy for acknowledging that certain groups exist as Indian tribes, and a petitioner must satisfy all the mandatory criteria in 25 C.F.R. § 83.7(a)-(g) for tribal status to be acknowledged. See25 C.F.R. §§ 83.2, 83.6. Such recognition is necessary before a group can take advantage of certain federal privileges and programs available to Indian tribes.

In December 1994, the STN submitted a petition to the BIA requesting acknowledgment as an Indian tribe under 25 C.F.R. pt. 83. In March 1999, the court stayed USA v. 43.47 Acres and STN v. Kent School to provide the BIA the opportunity to decide whether the STN constituted an Indian tribe for purposes of federal acknowledgment. The court vacated the stay in September 2000 but reinstated it when the Department of the Interior, the STN and the land claim defendants agreed on an expedited and enhanced administrative process by which the BIA would review and act upon the STN's petition for acknowledgment. Thus, in May 2001 the court entered a scheduling order permitting the BIA to determine the merits of the STN's petition for federal acknowledgment and, more specifically, determine whether the STN existed as an Indian tribe under federal law.

On October 11, 2005, the BIA issued a Reconsidered Final Determination (the “RFD”) concluding that the STN did not satisfy two of the mandatory criteria for federal acknowledgment. Specifically, the BIA found that the STN does not meet the criteria for “community” under 25 C.F.R. § 83.7(b) or “political influence or authority” under 25 C.F.R. § 83.7(c). Reconsidered Final Determination to Decline to Acknowledge the Schaghticoke Tribal Nation, 70 Fed.Reg. 60,101 (Oct. 14, 2005). Thus, the BIA found that the STN is not entitled to federal acknowledgment as an Indian tribe. Id.

On January 12, 2006, the STN appealed the RFD to this court pursuant to the Administrative Procedures Act. After extensive discovery, the parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. In ruling on the cross-motions for summary judgment, the court concluded that the BIA's final determination was “reasonable based on the evidence before it” that the STN failed to satisfy the criteria of “community” and “political influence or authority” due to the fact that a substantial portion of the Schaghticoke refused to be enrolled as members of the STN. Schaghticoke Tribal Nation v. Kempthorne, 587 F.Supp.2d 389, 418 (D.Conn.2008). The court entered judgment for the respondents. Id. at 422. The decision was affirmed on appeal by the Second Circuit, Schaghticoke Tribal Nation v. Kempthorne, 587 F.3d 132 (2d Cir.2009), and the Supreme Court denied certiorari, Schaghticoke Tribal Nation v. Salazar, ––– U.S. ––––, 131 S.Ct. 127, 178 L.Ed.2d 243 (2010).

Based on the foregoing, on February 7, 2012, Kent School, the Town of Kent and CL & P moved to vacate the stay in all three cases. This court granted that motion, and Kent School, the Town of Kent, CL & P and the United States moved for judgment on the pleadings.

II. LEGAL STANDARD

“After the pleadings are closed but within such time as not to delay the trial, any party may move for judgment on the pleadings.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(c). When considering a Rule 12(c) motion for judgment on the pleadings, the court uses the same standard as used to address a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. L–7 Designs, Inc. v. Old Navy, LLC, 647 F.3d 419, 429 (2d Cir.2011). When deciding a motion for judgmentunder Rule 12(c) or a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), the court must accept as true all factual allegations in the complaint and draw inferences in a light most favorable to the plaintiff. Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236, 94 S.Ct. 1683, 40 L.Ed.2d 90 (1974). Although a complaint “does not need detailed factual allegations, a plaintiff's obligation to provide the ‘grounds' of his ‘entitle[ment] to relief’ requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007) (internal citations omitted). “Nor does a complaint suffice if it tenders naked assertions devoid of further factual enhancement.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009) (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 557, 127 S.Ct. 1955) (internal quotation marks omitted). “Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level, on the assumption that all allegations in the complaint are true (even if doubtful in fact).” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955 (internal citations omitted). The plaintiff must plead “only enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Id. at 570, 127 S.Ct. 1955. “The issue is not whether plaintiff will prevail, but whether he is entitled to offer evidence to support his claims.” United States v. Yale New Haven Hosp., 727 F.Supp. 784, 786 (D.Co...