Wilson v. Dep't of Interior
| Docket Number | 5:23-cv-5027 |
| Decision Date | 02 August 2023 |
| Parties | MELATNE R. WILSON, Plaintiff v. DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR, BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS-WASHINGTON, D.C., BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS-PTNE RIDGE AGENCY, OGLALA SIOUX TRIBE, LAND OFFICE, OGLALA SIOUX TRIBE, PINE RIDGE BIA REALTY, OGLALA SIOUX TRIBE LAND COMMITTEE FOR RESIDENTIAL AND BUSTNESS LEASES |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of South Dakota |
Pending before the Court are Plaintiffs Complaint, (Doc. 1), Motion to Proceed in Forma Pauperis, (Doc. 7), and Motion to Appoint Counsel, (Doc. 4). She names as Defendants the Department of Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs-Washington, D.C., Bureau of Indian Affairs-Pine Ridge Agency, Oglala Sioux Tribe Land Office, and Oglala Sioux Tribe. (Id., PgID 1). She also includes Pine Ridge BIA Realty and Oglala Sioux Tribe Land Committee for Residential and Business Leases. (Id., PgID 2). Plaintiff states this lawsuit is related to another that she filed, 5:22-cv-5094.
28 U.S.C. §1915(a)(1) directs the court to authorize the commencement of a civil action without prepayment of fees upon proof of plaintiff s inability to pay. A person may be permitted to proceed in forma pauperis if he or she "submits an affidavit that includes a statement of all assets" the person possesses, and also states "that the person is unable to pay such fees or give security therefore." Id. The Eighth Circuit has established parameters for addressing in forma pauperis motions and has instructed that a petitioner's financial status should be evaluated first, and screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 should follow. Martin-Trigona v Stewart, 691 F.2d 856, 857 (8th Cir. 1982). The court has recognized that the applicant need not establish "absolute destitution." Lee v. McDonald's Corp., 231 F.3d 456, 459 (8th Cir. 2000). See also Babino v. Janssen & Son, 2017 WL 6813137, at * 1 (D.S.D. 2017). The District Court's task is to determine whether the plaintiffs allegation of poverty is true, and that determination is within the court's discretion. Lee, 231 F.3d at 459.
Plaintiff has submitted sufficient documentation to establish that she should be permitted to proceed in forma pauperis. As was the case in her other lawsuits, (5:22-cv-5094, 5:22-cv-5097, 5:22-cv-5095, 5:22-cv-5091 and5:23-cv-5041), Plaintiff reports income in the form of military retirement and disability payments. (Doc. 7). Her household expenses are significant. In addition, she reports over $114,000 in student loan debt, which the Court notes did not appear in most of her previous filings. The Court finds Plaintiff is indigent within the meaning of § 1915(a)(1). This is consistent with the Court's determination of in forma pauperis status in Plaintiffs previous lawsuits. The Court's finding means her claims will be screened pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e).
A proceeding in forma pauperis is governed by 28 U.S.C. §1915(e) which provides:
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).
This provision allows the court sua sponte to review a complaint filed with an in forma pauperis application to determine if the action warrants dismissal. In screening plaintiffs pro se complaint, the court must liberally construe it and assume as true all facts well pleaded in the complaint. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007). Even with this construction, "a pro se complaint must contain specific facts supporting its conclusions." Martin v. Sargent, 780 F.2d 1334, 1337 (8th Cir. 1985).
To state a claim for relief, a complaint must plead more than "legal conclusions" and "[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action's elements, supported by mere conclusory statements." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009) ). A reviewing court has the duty to examine a pro se complaint "to determine if the allegations provide for relief on any possible theory." Williams v. Willits, 853 F.2d 586, 588 (8th Cir. 1988). A plaintiff must demonstrate a plausible claim for relief, that "allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Ashcroft, 556 U.S. at 675. If it does not contain these bare essentials, dismissal is appropriate. The court is not required to construct legal theories for the plaintiff to enable the case to proceed. Marglon v City of Sioux Falls Police Dept., 2020 WL 906521, *2 (D.S.D. 2020) (citing Stone v. Harry, 364 F.3d 912, 914 (8th Cir. 2004)).
Plaintiff begins her complaint by asserting she wants the Department of Interior to "investigate and prosecute" for the Oglala Sioux Tribe under "the 'Bad White Man' Clause against DOI, BIA and Oglala Sioux Tribe Land Committee." (Doc. 1, PgID 1). She continues, "I have spent more than 10 years driving back and forth" to the local BIA Realty Office and tribal Land Committee "to get several land issues accomplished." (Id., PgID 3). She lists land consolidation, partitions, her desire for lifetime residential leases for herself and her children, business lifetime leases, and replacement of topsoil on a tract of land. (Id.). She asks for $550,000 in damages. (Id., PgID 4).
Her lengthier complaint sets forth a number of questions and then lists a "timeline of current Pine Ridge Indian Reservation Trust Lands" as she understands them. The timeline begins in 1865 with a reference to Dred Scott v. United States, (doc. 1-1, PgID 477), and includes 62 paragraphs describing national events and her personal experiences. She identifies three events in 1972, 1973, and 1999, which are protests revealing that there is "intergenerational information and intergenerational strategy" enabling various workers and tribal council members to steal "the majority of current fee lands" in Oglala and Jackson counties of the reservation. (Id., PgID 478). She asserts that "thousands of acres" have been "stolen" by "Pine Ridge BIA Realty and Oglala Sioux Tribe Council." (Id., PgID 482).
She requests substantial remedies, including land consolidation; land partition; adoption of Six Sigma processes for certain activities; dissolution of BIA Pine Ridge Agency; moving the Red Cloud Indian Building and construction of a new building for $150 million; online access for enrolled members to a plat map of the Pine Ridge Reservation; transparency; business building for the tribe's veterans for a personal value of $100,000; and business building personal damages to Plaintiff of $400,000. (Id., PgID 484-85). She claims the Defendants have damaged her for a 10-year period for a total of $550,000. Plaintiff includes many attachments, including her complaint to the Department of Interior, letter to President Biden, original plat map of Pine Ridge, and other documents. The list of attachments is at Doc. 1-1, PgID 486.
As the Court has recognized, including in prior lawsuits filed by Plaintiff, many restrictions on federal court intervention in the internal affairs of tribes are firmly in place. See, e.g., Sac & Fox Tribe of the Mississippi in Iowa, Election Board v. Bureau of Indian Affairs, 439 F.3d 832, 835 (8th Cir. 2006) (); Wright v. Langdeau, 158 F.Supp.3d 825, 836 (D.S.D. 2016); Montgomery v. Flandreau Santee Sioux Tribe, 2006 WL 482479, *5 (D.S.D. 2006). Tribal law and policy are matters to be determined by the tribe in the first instance. Sac & Fox Tribe, 439 F.3d at 835. Therefore, when an individual tribal member seeks federal court intervention in what appears to be a matter of internal tribal policy, the court proceeds with caution. As one court recently explained, federal question jurisdiction is not created simply because "a case involves an Indian party or contract or tribal or individual Indian property, or ... arises in Indian country." Whalen v. Oglala Sioux Tribe Executive Officers, 2021 WL 4267654, *2 (D.S.D. 2021) (quoting COHEN'S HANDBOOK OF FEDERAL INDIAN LAW § 7.04[1][a] (Nell Jessup Newton ed., 2012)). In this case, as discussed below, Plaintiffs lawsuit must be dismissed for at least three reasons: tribal sovereign immunity, standing, and failure to meet pleading requirements.
Tribal sovereign immunity has been recognized as a significant aspect of tribes' status as sovereigns. Michigan v Bay Mills Indian Community, 572 U.S. 782, 788 (2014); Santa Clara Pueblo v. Martinez, 436 U.S. 49, 58 (1978) (). This immunity is viewed as "a necessary corollary to Indian sovereignty and self-governance." Bay Mills, 572 U.S. at 788 (quoting Three Affiliated Tribes of Fort Berthold Reservation v. Wold Engineering, P.C., 476 U.S. 877, 890 (1986)). Suits may be brought against tribes if the tribe waives its immunity or Congress abrogates it. Okla. Tax Comm 'n v. Citizen Band Potawatomi Indian Tribe of Okla., 498 U.S. 505, 509 (1991); Stanko v. Oglala Sioux Tribe, 916 F.3d 694, 696 (8th Cir. 2019) (citing Amerind Risk Mgmt. Corp. v. Malaterre, 633 F.3d 680, 685 (8 Cir. 2011)). Any waiver of tribal sovereign immunity must be "unequivocal." ...
To continue reading
Request your trial