Bradley v. Tulalip Tribes
10 Am. Tribal Law 283
Tulalip Court of Appeals2012Background
- Appellant faced a 14-count Tulalip Tort Claims Act case alleging abuse of process and wrongful prosecution in a sealed criminal record.
- A protective order in the underlying criminal case sealed records, restricting disclosure without tribal court authorization.
- Appellant timely filed a Complaint for Damages under Ordinance 122 and served a Proof of Compliance, despite limited access to records.
- Trial court dismissed under Ordinance 122 as immunizing the Tribe, including some outside-scope claims; it did not consider discovery about scope.
- Appellant challenged dismissal, seeking to unseal the record to identify additional facts and individuals; motions to unseal were denied.
- This appeal followed, raising four issues about immunity scope, exceptions for malicious prosecution, notice sufficiency, and the denial of unsealing access.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether dismissal was improper given immunity scope | Appellant argues immunity does not cover outside-scope agents | Tribe argues immunity covers only within-scope acts | Remanded for discovery to determine scope of authority |
| Whether malicious-prosecution claims are allowed despite Ordinance 122 | Consent to exception allows malicious-prosecution claims | Ordinance 122 immunizes against such claims | Remanded to allow malicious-prosecution claims against individuals or Tribe |
| Whether Notice of Claim complied with Ordinance 122 | Notice provided sufficient information given multi-year sealed record | Notice deficient under 4(b)(2) | Notice deemed sufficient; remand to evaluate unsealing access |
| Whether denial of unsealing access was proper under Tribal law | Access to underlying record necessary to pursue claims | Protective order justified sealing the file | Remanded to establish protective-order standards and permissible access |
Key Cases Cited
- Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89 (U.S. Supreme Court 1984) (sovereign immunity limits; acts outside authority not protected)
- Hardin v. White Mountain Apache Tribe, 779 F.2d 476 (9th Cir. 1985) (immunity extends to officials acting within scope of authority)
- United States v. Yakima Tribal Court, 806 F.2d 853 (9th Cir. 1986) (tribal court immunity; scope of authority considerations)
- Seattle Times Co. v. Ishikawa, 97 Wash.2d 30, 640 P.2d 716 (Wash. Supreme Court 1982) (requirements for sealed/redacted court records; due process considerations)
- Seattle Times Co. v. Serko, 170 Wash.2d 581, 243 P.3d 919 (Wash. Supreme Court 2010) (limits on sealing records; need for hearing and compelling interest)