This is a BRIEF respite, as attorneys are filing amended complaints. From the judges decision:
Plaintiffs argue the DOI decisions are final agency actions and have the same force as clearly valid federal statutes. (Dkt. No. 59 at 2–4.) However, assuming without deciding the DOI decisions are final agency actions, the original briefing and the supplemental briefing provide no authority that discusses the judicial immunity exceptions in the context of federal agency
decisions. The Supreme Court has narrowly construed the exceptions to absolute judicial immunity. See, e.g., Stump, 435 U.S. at 357–360; Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547, 554–55 (1967);
Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U.S. 335, 347 (1872). Guided by this narrow construction and without authority that supports the analogy that final agency decisions rise to the level of clearly established case law and statutes, the Court declines to adopt this analogy.3 Therefore, Defendant
Dodge is entitled to judicial immunity because on this record and these arguments, Plaintiffs have not demonstrated that the exceptions to absolute immunity are met.
For the foregoing reasons, Defendant Dodge’s motion to dismiss (Dkt. No. 30) is GRANTED.
However, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs leave to amend the complaint4 becausedismissal with prejudice is “improper unless it is clear, upon de novo review, that the complaint
could not be saved by any amendment.” Krainski v. Nev. ex rel. Bd. of Regents of Nev. Sys. of
Higher Educ., 616 F.3d 963, 972 (9th Cir. 2010). If Plaintiffs choose to amend their complaint,
they must do so within 14 days. If no amendment is filed, the claims will be DISMISSED with
prejudice
2 comments:
In 1986 the Assistant Secretary of Indian Affaits for DOI made a "Final Decision" the Margarita Britten" of Pala was FULLBLOOD 4/4 Cupeno but still 26 years later when her ancestors starting asking certain tribal leaders to many questions and wouldn't take no for an answer or "shut up and sit down" and tried to impeach the vice-chairman those same tribal leaders ruled Margarita Britten to be 1/2 Cupeno because of documents they have that "they don't need to show anyone because they are a sovereign tribe" includeding the tribal members they are using these make believe documents against. The tribal leaders were taken to court but they claimed sovereignty so the "Final Decision" was never enforced and the BIA was taken to court to make them enforce their ASIA "Final Decision on Margarita Britten blood degree but the said only tribes can determine membership and the court agreed so they didn't have to enforce the decision. DOI rulings or decisions are not as strong as law and there is nobody to enforce over tribes who break tribal law and do what they want and the tribal leaders j ow this that's why they continue to be corrupt and will continue until somebody steps in. Robert Smith the Pala chairman is so corrupt when his actions are exposed it will be mind blowing what he was able to get away with and do.
What the Court ruled in Aguayo v. Jewell was that the statute of limitations had expired on appeals to the approval of the Pala Constitution and so the Plaintiffs could not challenge the federal government approval of the Constitution. The Court also ruled that the AS-IA was reasonable in determining that the BIA could not intervene in an internal tribal matter involving membership because tribes have the right to determine their own membership in accordance with the decision in Santa Clara Pueblos v. Martinez, and so the case was dismissed, affirmed by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
The Pala EC was sued in Allen v. Smith for overstepping its authority in changing the blood degree of Margarita Britten among other things. This case was dismissed because the Court ruled that the Pala EC was acting in its official capacity in making membership determinations and was entitled to the protection of sovereign immunity.
This decision notes that the Court cannot assume that all DOI rulings are final agency actions and that the submitted brief provide no authority for waiver of judicial immunity.
The fine points will trip you up every time in federal court. All the details must be viewed, reviewed, and double checked for accuracy and relevance. Federal Agencies normally receive a high level of deferencem but the Court has a vested interest in preserving and promoting the principle of judicial immunity. After all, the person making the decision is a judge and does not want to open the door to civil actions against judges for actions committed while serving on the bench.
Post a Comment