Wright v. United States
| Decision Date | 30 March 2023 |
| Docket Number | CIV-22-166-RAW,CIV-22-145-RAW |
| Parties | STEPHEN C. WRIGHT, Plaintiff v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Defendant. STEPHEN WRIGHT and the Estate of MARY B. JONES, Plaintiffs v. PATRICK L. WALLACE, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Oklahoma |
Before the court are two (2) motions to dismiss two (2) separate but related lawsuits filed by Plaintiff Stephen C. Wright (“Plaintiff”). Wallace Doc. 8; Gov. Doc. 10. Also before the court is a motion to remand one of Plaintiff's two lawsuits. Wallace Doc. 9.
First in Case No. 22-CV-145-RAW, Defendant United States of America (“Government”) argues for dismissal of Plaintiff's claims against the Government for lack of standing pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(1) and for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(6). Gov. Doc. 10. Second, in Case No 22-CV-166-RAW, Defendants Patrick and Pamela Wallace (“Wallaces”) argue for dismissal of Plaintiff's claims against the Wallaces for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(6). Wallace Doc 8. Plaintiff's motion to remand is filed in this latter case. Wallace Doc. 9.
All three motions are fully briefed. For the reasons stated, Plaintiff's motion to remand [Wallace Doc. 9] is DENIED. The Government's and the Wallace's respective motions to dismiss [Wallace Doc. 8; Gov. Doc. 10] are each GRANTED.
Plaintiff's lawsuits stem from an alleged allotment of land from the Choctaw Nation, one of the Five Civilized Tribes, to Mary B. Jones, a minor, pursuant to an Act of Congress-The Act of May 27, 1908, 35 Stat. 312 (the “1908 Act”). Wallace Doc. 2, Ex. 2 at ¶ 8; Gov. Doc. 5 at ¶¶ 5, 8. The land was available for allotment by the Choctaw Nation to individual tribal members as a result of the Dawes Commission. Gov. Doc. 12 at p. 3 (). Mary. B. Jones died in infancy on October 14, 1902, and said lands were purportedly allotted thereafter. Wallace Doc. 2, Ex. 2 at ¶ 7; Gov. Doc. 5 at ¶ 5.
Plaintiff alleges an array of ensuing wrongs, intentional and unintentional, by individuals and governmental entities alike. The court acknowledges this period's fraught history with respect to Native relations in the geographical area that composes the Eastern District of Oklahoma (and beyond). Yet Plaintiff's factual allegations with respect to Mary B. Jones and the land at issue are, to say the least, not altogether clear.
For example, Plaintiff alleges vaguely that in 1908, one “Mr. Hall” paid Ellen and Joseph Hampton to “touch the pen”[2] on an affidavit of heirship and warranty deeds regarding the land, and that in 1918 the affidavit and warranty deeds were found to be fraudulent. Gov. Doc. 12 at 1. Later, in 1928, “[a]n order issued [that] validated the allotments of Mary B. Jones in cause 3480 heard before the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma ....” Gov. Doc. 5 at ¶ 7. The order specifically “identified and decreed that Solomon Jones, full blood Choctaw, was heir to Mary B. Jones and . . . established equity of surplus lands by decree of at least 50%.” Gov. Doc. 12 at p. 2. Plaintiff alleges that he is a descendent of Solomon Jones and, by extension, Mary B. Jones. Id. A significant gap in the timeline of Plaintiff's factual allegations follows.
The Wallaces purchased the property at issue over a quarter-century ago, on or about June 27, 1997 [Wallace Doc. 8, Ex. 1], and have resided at the property to the present date. The Wallaces commissioned a title report in advance of their purchase of the property, which revealed that in 1941 the Carter County District Court quieted title in the property, thus enabling the title holders to thereafter convey the property cleanly and clear of defects. Id. at Ex. 2. Plaintiff nevertheless claims that the Wallaces' title is flawed because the chain of title does not account for Mary B. Jones. Wallace Doc. 2, Ex. 2. Plaintiff also avers that the Government violated a trust duty to Mary B. Jones by failing to place the land in restrictive status. Gov. Doc. 5.
Plaintiff initiated this lawsuit on May 11, 2022, asserting a single cause of action against the Government for “unintentional negligence.” Gov. Doc. 2. The operative pleading for the purpose of the Government's motion to dismiss is Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint, filed May 16, 2022, which similarly asserts a single cause of action against the Government for “unintentional negligence.” Gov. Doc. 5.
Plaintiff purports to be the “heir-in-law to Mary B. Jones,” a full blood Native American minor, deceased October 14, 1902. Id. at ¶¶ 1, 5. Plaintiff alleges that the Government owed a “duty of care to minor allottees such as Mary B. Jones,” and that the Government breached said duty by failing to place the land held by Ms. Jones's estate in restrictive status following her death. Id. ¶ at 8. Plaintiff requests that the Government be “ordered to place the lands allotted to Mary B. Jones, minor full blood Choctaw . . . into restrictive status and order the [Government] to defend and protect the lands held by [the] estate of Mary B. Jones as afforded by law ” Id. at ¶ 11.
The Government argues that Plaintiff's lawsuit should be dismissed for multiple reasons, all falling under the umbrellas of lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Gov. Doc. 10 at 2. More specifically, the Government contends Plaintiff's lawsuit should be dismissed because (i) Plaintiff lacks standing to bring suit for an alleged injury suffered by an ancestor, (ii) Plaintiff failed to exhaust administrative remedies as required by the Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”), (iii) Plaintiff in fact seeks money damages and thus his claims are not sustainable in district court under and Administrative Procedures Act (“APA”), (iv) the applicable statute of limitations for Plaintiff's tort claim as provided by the FTCA has expired, and (v) the Government owed no trust duty to Plaintiff's ancestor because the statute under which Plaintiff purports to bring his breach of trust claim was passed in 1908 and applied only to living minors, whereas Mary B. Jones died in 1902. Gov. Doc. 10.
Separately, on November 29, 2021, Plaintiff filed a quiet title action against the Wallaces and others in the District Court for Carter County, State of Oklahoma.[3] On April 22, 2022, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint[4] against only the Wallaces. Wallace Doc. 2, Ex. 2. Plaintiff filed the quiet title action on behalf of himself as well as the “Estate of Mary B. Jones (minor).” Id. at ¶ 1.
Plaintiff's allegations with respect to the Wallaces, like those against the Government, are based on the allotment of the same plot of land to Mary B. Jones, a Native American minor deceased in 1902. Id. at ¶¶ 7, 12. Plaintiff claims that the Wallaces, who reside at the property in question, do not have a clean chain of title because it does not account for Mary B. Jones. Id. at ¶ 8.
The Wallaces removed Plaintiff's lawsuit to federal court, where it was assigned to the undersigned and recaptioned. Wallace Doc. 2. In their removal papers, the Wallaces assert that this court has original jurisdiction over Plaintiff's lawsuit because it involves federal issues and because federal statutes explicitly establish federal subject matter jurisdiction. Id. at ¶¶ 5-7 (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1353 and 25 U.S.C. § 1354). Plaintiff disagrees. Gov. Doc. 9. Specifically, in his motion for remand, Plaintiff asserts that actions regarding the allotment of land to members of the Five Civilized Tribes (such as this case) are excluded from federal jurisdiction pursuant to 25 U.S.C. §§ 345, 353, 355 & 1331. Id. at 2. Moreover, Plaintiff argues that this lawsuit is not removeable under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 because it involves “no claims . . . arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” Id. at 1.
The Wallaces raise additional arguments in their reply brief, namely: removal is appropriate under the circumstances to protect against forum shopping and claim splitting, and to prevent the waste of judicial resources and potential inconsistent outcomes. Wallace Doc. 15 at 7. The Wallaces have also filed a motion to dismiss in the event the court resolves Plaintiff's remand motion in their favor. Wallace Doc. 8. In their dismissal motion, the Wallaces argue that Plaintiff's lawsuit should be dismissed because it is barred by the doctrine of res judicata and because the applicable statute of limitations has run. Id. at 2-3.
The court deems it appropriate to first resolve Plaintiff's motion to remand his lawsuit against the Wallaces to Carter County District Court-if remand is appropriate, the Wallaces' dismissal motion is moot. The Wallaces assert that removal is appropriate based on the existence of federal question jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1331. The Wallaces allege that Plaintiff's Amended Complaint “necessarily raise[s] a stated federal issue, actually disputed and substantial, which a federal forum may entertain without disturbing any congressionally approved balance of federal and state judicial responsibilities.” Wallace Doc. 2 at ¶ 5 (quoting Gunn v. Minton, 568 U.S. 251, 158 (2013)).
Plaintiff's motion to remand is sparse...
To continue reading
Request your trial