United States v. Hosteen Tse-Kesi, Civ. No. 1803.

• Citation: 93 F. Supp. 745
• Decision Date: 31 October 1950
• Docket Number: Civ. No. 1803.
• Parties: UNITED STATES v. HOSTEEN TSE-KESI et al.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Utah

93 F. Supp. 745

UNITED STATES v. HOSTEEN TSE-KESI et al.

Civ. No. 1803.

United States District Court, D. Utah, Central Division.

October 31, 1950.

O. K. Clay, Asst. U. S. Atty., Salt Lake City, Utah, for plaintiff.

Knox Patterson, Salt Lake City, Utah, for defendants.

RITTER, District Judge.

This is a bill to enjoin Navajo Indians from trespassing, grazing and feeding livestock upon lands in San Juan County, Utah, situated north of the San Juan River. In about the year 1933 the United States cut out a small tract of land north of the San Juan River known as the Aneth Extension and attached it to the Navajo Indian Reservation. The Indians who are defendants in this proceeding occupy lands outside of the Reservation and outside of the Aneth Extension. It is claimed that they constitute an independent band of Navajos who have occupied a large area of land in southeastern Utah for a time beyond the memory of man, but in particular since February 1, 1848, the date of the Treaty of Guadelupe Hidalgo between Mexico and the United States, in which it is claimed the property rights of these Indians were affirmed and guaranteed. It is claimed these Indians have aboriginal and ancestral rights of use and occupation to the lands in question, and have occupied the same themselves or through their ancestors for homes for their families and fields for cultivation and for grazing of their herds.

The United States, plaintiff in this proceeding, petitions the Court to enjoin the Indians from occupying the premises which for some years have been their homes and grazing grounds. What the government is asking the Court to do, in short, is to force the Indians to leave their homes and fields and grazing grounds. But the Court has no authority to allot to the Indians any other place to live, on or off the Reservation. In reality, the government is asking the Court to order these Indians to become in effect homeless Nomads.

It appearing that on July 12, 1950 the United States Attorney, on behalf of the plaintiff filed his Motion for Summary Judgment, Motion to Strike and Motion to Dismiss Cross Complaint and Counterclaim.

And on August 23, 1950 the case came on for hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment. The Court heard arguments of counsel and denied the Motion. The basis for the denial was that there appeared to be issues of fact which were not concluded by the documents on file or by the admissions of counsel herein.

And on the 23rd day of August, 1950 the Court heard further arguments of counsel upon plaintiff's Motion to Dismiss the defendant's Cross Complaint and Counterclaim for money damages. And it was ordered that the Cross Complaint and Counterclaim be and the same were dismissed. The basis for the dismissal of the defendant's Cross Complaint and Counterclaim was that a Federal District Court is not the proper forum in which to seek money damages upon an Indian claim against the United States. That such claims must be presented either to the Indian Claims Commission or to the Court of Claims of the United States.

And on October 9, 1950 defendants filed their Amended Answer,...