San Pasqual Tribe: Alegre v U.S. Decision Renders Victory for U.S.

 

The five year struggle to bring a case against the BIA by San Pasqual descendants in the ALEGRE v US case has some decisions today.  The Alegre case seems to suffer here.  Read backstory in JOSE JUAN Descendants  

(1) DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPLETE THE ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD, (Doc. No. 136) 

Plaintiffs have not carried their burden in establishing merit to their claim. In sum, in the face of Defendants’ designation of the administrative record, Plaintiffs fall short in providing “clear evidence” that the record is incomplete. Accordingly, the motion to complete the administrative record is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

(2) GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO STRIKE THE ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD, (Doc. No. 139) 

Apart from conclusory arguments, Plaintiffs make no cogent showing as to how other factors should have been considered by Defendants. It is an established rule that “the focal point for judicial review should be the administrative record already in existence, not some new record made initially in the reviewing court.” Camp v. Pitts, 411 U.S. 138, 142 (1973). For these reasons, the Court GRANTS IN PART AND DENIES IN PART Plaintiffs’ motion to supplement the record.

(3) GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO SUPPLEMENT THE ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD, (Doc. No. 40) 

(4) GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO SEAL THE ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD, (Doc. No. 148)

Plaintiffs argue Defendants have not followed the mandates of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure with respect to the administrative record. (Doc. No. 139 at 6–8.) However, the Court does not find this as a sufficient basis to strike the administrative record.
Plaintiffs provide no Ninth Circuit authority to support this contention that the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure govern the instant proceedings. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ motion to strike pages 177–282, 314, and 318 of the administrative record. Plaintiffs’ motion to strike is DENIED as to all other aspects.

IV. CONCLUSION

For all the reasons stated, the Court: 1. DENIES Plaintiffs’ motion to complete the administrative record, (Doc. No. 136) 2. GRANTS IN PART AND DENIES IN PART WITHOUT PREJUDICE Plaintiffs’ motion to strike the administrative record, (Doc. No. 139) 3. GRANTS IN PART AND DENIES IN PART WITHOUT PREJUDICE Plaintiffs’ motion to supplement the administrative record, (Doc. No. 40) 4. GRANTS IN PART AND DENIES IN PART Defendants’ motion to seal the administrative record, (Doc. No. 148)