UTE Indian Tribe of the Uintah & Ouray Reservation v. Lawrence
| Decision Date | 15 July 2022 |
| Docket Number | 2:16-cv-00579-TC |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Utah |
| Parties | UTE INDIAN TRIBE OF THE UINTAH & OURAY RESERVATION, a federally recognized Indian Tribe and a federally chartered corporation, the UINTAH AND OURAY TRIBAL BUSINESS COMMITTEE, and UTE ENERGY HOLDINGS LLC, a Delaware LLC, Plaintiffs, v. HONORABLE BARRY G. LAWRENCE, District Judge, Utah Third Judicial District Court, in his Individual and Official Capacities, and LYNN D. BECKER, Defendants. |
Following the Tenth Circuit's remand order in Ute Indian Tribe of the Uintah & Ouray Reservation v. Lawrence (Lawrence II), 22 F.4th 892 (10th Cir. 2022), the court denied the Tribe's request for attorneys' fees under 42 U.S.C § 1988. (ECF No. 239.) With no outstanding claims or issues to decide, the court entered a permanent injunction and final judgment. (ECF Nos. 240 & 241.) Now the Tribe seeks to resurrect its § 1983 claim (and thereby its entitlement to § 1988 attorneys' fees) by first reopening the judgment and then amending its complaint. (ECF Nos. 244 & 243.) The Tribe also wants the judgment amended to include the $11,774.66 and $2,028.00 in costs taxed against Defendant Lynn D. Becker. (ECF Nos. 241 & 242.)
The Tribe's proposed second amended complaint removed its claims for injunctive and declaratory relief, leaving only a § 1983 claim against Defendant Judge Barry G. Lawrence yet it still named Mr. Becker as a defendant. Impelled by the unusual request to amend the complaint six years after the case was filed, the court ordered supplemental briefing on three issues. First, the court asked whether an amended complaint would undo any of its prior orders-including the permanent injunction it entered on February 28, 2022-and whether Mr. Becker could remain a defendant despite there being no pending claims against him.[1] Second, the court asked about Judge Lawrence's potential immunity under the Eleventh Amendment. Third, the court asked whether Plaintiff Shaun Chapoose and the Tribe in its corporate capacity were “persons” under § 1983. (See Suppl. Br. Order, ECF No. 258.) The parties have since fully briefed these issues. (ECF Nos. 263, 264, 268 & 269.)
For the following reasons, the court DENIES both pending motions.
The Tribe filed a “Rule 59 motion for reconsideration, or to alter or amend judgment, or alternatively, a Rule 60 motion to reopen judgment.” (ECF No. 244.) It cites two grounds for relief. First, the court “prematurely” entered judgment because it did not wait for the Tribe's costs to be taxed by the Clerk of Court. Second, the court denied the Tribe's motion for attorneys' fees without allowing the “adversarial process” to play out. The Tribe filed this motion contemporaneously with its motion to amend its complaint to (better) state a claim under § 1983. Functionally, the Tribe needs the judgment reopened before it can amend its complaint and pursue a new § 1983 claim.
Relief under Rule 59(e) is appropriate when “the court has misapprehended the facts, a party's position, or the controlling law.” Nelson v. City of Albuquerque, 921 F.3d 925, 929 (10th Cir. 2019) (quoting Servants of Paraclete v. Does, 204 F.3d 1005, 1012 (10th Cir. 2000)).
Similarly, relief under Rule 60(b)(1) requires showing that “the judge has made a substantive mistake of law or fact in the final judgment or order.” Cashner v. Freedom Stores, Inc., 98 F.3d 572, 576 (10th Cir. 1996).
“A bill of costs shall be filed in the case and, upon allowance, included in the judgment or decree.” 28 U.S.C. § 1920; see also DUCivR 54-2(c) (). Here, the Clerk of Court already included the Tribe's costs in the judgment. (See ECF No. 242 at 1 ().) Even setting that aside, the court does not need to amend the judgment to include the already-taxed costs. Rule 54 draws “[a] sharp distinction between the judgment on the merits and an award of costs.” Buchanan v. Stanships, Inc., 485 U.S. 265, 268 (1988). And Rule 58 instructs that “the entry of judgment may not be delayed . . . in order to tax costs or award fees.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 58(e).
Simply put, “the entry of judgment and the taxation of costs are entirely separate legal acts,” and “a motion for costs is not properly one to alter or amend the judgment under Rule 59(e).” 11 Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2781 (3d ed.) (citing Md. Cas. Co. v. Jacobson, 37 F.R.D. 427, 430 (W.D. Mo. 1965)); 10 Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2679 (4th ed.) (citing Samaad v. City of Dall., 922 F.2d 216 (5th Cir. 1991)). The court did not err by entering judgment before the Tribe's costs were taxed.
The court also did not err when it denied the motion for attorneys' fees without waiting for Judge Lawrence or Mr. Becker to respond. There were two alternative reasons for the court's decision. First, the Tribe could not “‘prevail[]' on its § 1983 claim because it ‘[proceeded] in its sovereign capacity, not as a “person” within the meaning of § 1983.'” (ECF No. 239 at 2 .) Second, the Tribe had “waived its § 1983 argument by ‘not challeng[ing] this ruling on appeal.'” (Id. (quoting Ute Indian Tribe of the Uintah & Ouray Rsrv. v. Lawrence (Lawrence I), 875 F.3d 539, 541 n.2 (10th Cir. 2017).) There was no need to wait for the Defendants to announce their opposition to the Tribe's motion or to identify these two obvious issues. Because the Tribe has not shown its entitlement to relief under Rule 59 or Rule 60, the court will deny the Tribe's motion. (ECF No. 244.)
The Tribe also moved to amend its amended complaint. (ECF No. 243.) In the Tribe's revised proposed second amended complaint, there are new facts to “correct the pleading deficiencies” identified in Becker II, 868 F.3d at 1206. (Mot. to Amend at 8, ECF No. 243.) For example, the new complaint emphasizes the Tribe's “two separate and distinct capacities”: its sovereign capacity and its corporate capacity. (Id.) It also highlights two other key interests, those of Mr. Chapoose, the Chairman of the Ute Indian Tribal Business Committee, and those of all other Tribal members. (See id. at 9-10.) Taken together, these changes purportedly correct the issue raised in the court's prior ruling (that the Tribe was not a “‘person' within the meaning of § 1983”). (ECF No. 239 at 2 (quoting Becker II, 868 F.3d at 1206).)
“The court should freely give leave [to amend a complaint] when justice so requires.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a)(2). But the court may deny leave if it finds “undue delay, bad faith or dilatory motive on the part of the movant, repeated failure to cure deficiencies by amendments previously allowed, undue prejudice to the opposing party by virtue of allowance of the amendment, [or] futility of [the] amendment.” Hasan v. AIG Prop. Cas. Co., 935 F.3d 1092, 1101-02 (10th Cir. 2019) (quoting Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962)). Here, the court concludes that the Tribe's proposed amendment would be futile, as it “would not survive a motion for summary judgment.” Watson ex rel. Watson v. Beckel, 242 F.3d 1237, 1240 (10th Cir. 2001).[2]
To start, the Tribe has conceded that it cannot state a § 1983 claim against Mr. Becker. (Reply at 2, ECF No. 253.) It instead seeks to hold Judge Lawrence, in his personal and official capacities, liable for presiding over the Becker state-court suit, which supposedly violated the Tribe's, Mr. Chapoose's, and the other Tribal members' federal rights. (See generally Revised Proposed Second Am. Compl., ECF No. 262-1.) Within the Tribe's § 1983 claim is an implicit § 1988 claim for attorneys' fees and expert witness fees. These fees are unavailable against a judge unless the judge clearly exceeded his jurisdiction. § 1988(b). Judge Lawrence raises the twin defenses of judicial immunity and the Eleventh Amendment. The court agrees with Judge Lawrence and finds that the Tribe's proposed § 1983 claim against him would not survive a motion for summary judgment, as it is barred by both judicial immunity and the Eleventh Amendment.
Judicial immunity, which “applies only to personal capacity claims,” Crowe & Dunlevy, P.C. v. Stidham, 640 F.3d 1140, 1156 (10th Cir. 2011) (citing Kentucky v Graham, 473 U.S. 159, 166-67 (1985)), “is an immunity from suit, not just from ultimate assessment of damages.” Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 11 (1991) (citing Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 526 (1985)). This broad immunity has two exceptions. A judge is not immune from liability for “actions not taken in the judge's judicial capacity,” nor is a judge immune for “actions, though judicial in nature, taken in the complete absence of all jurisdiction.” Id. (citing Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 360 (1978)). Because Judge Lawrence's presiding over the Becker state-court suit was a quintessential judicial action, only the second exception is at issue here. The question is whether Judge Lawrence acted “in the complete absence of all jurisdiction”-that is, “clearly without any colorable claim of jurisdiction.” Snell v. Tunnell, 920 F.2d 673, 686 (10th Cir. 1990) (citing Sparkman, 435 U.S. at 356-57). The Sparkman Court distinguished between “lack of jurisdiction” and “excess of jurisdiction.” 435 U.S. at 356 n.7. A probate judge who tries a criminal case lacks jurisdiction ...
To continue reading
Request your trial