934 F.3d 1076
9th Cir.2019Background
- Four enrolled Chemehuevi tribal members (Bunim, Sansoucie, Ochoa, Lopez) were stopped and cited by San Bernardino County deputies in 2015 for California regulatory vehicle offenses; two citations occurred on Section 36 and two elsewhere on the Reservation.
- Plaintiffs sued the County and deputies under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 seeking damages, declaratory and injunctive relief, claiming unlawful state regulation and related constitutional/statutory violations.
- The district court first entered a preliminary injunction barring enforcement of state regulatory vehicle laws against tribal members on-reservation (including Section 36), but later granted summary judgment to defendants, concluding Section 36 was not within the Reservation and dismissing § 1983 claims for failing to allege a cognizable constitutional violation.
- Plaintiffs appealed; the Ninth Circuit reviewed de novo whether Section 36 is “Indian country” under 18 U.S.C. § 1151(a) and whether the individuals or the Tribe may bring § 1983 actions to challenge the citations.
- The Ninth Circuit relied on historical administrative actions (Special Agent Kelsey’s report and the 1907 Secretary of the Interior Order establishing the Chemehuevi Reservation) and concluded Section 36 lies within the Reservation; it held the individual plaintiffs may sue under § 1983 but the Tribe may not.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Section 36 is within the Chemehuevi Reservation (Indian country) | Section 36 was historically occupied by the Tribe, included in Kelsey’s recommendations and the 1907 Secretary Order, so it is within the Reservation | Section 36 was conveyed to California (per the 1853 grant and 1895 survey) or excluded by later patents, so not part of the Reservation | Section 36 is within the Chemehuevi Reservation and thus Indian country under § 1151(a) |
| Whether enrolled tribal members can bring § 1983 claims for state enforcement actions on reservation land | Individuals may vindicate their personal constitutional and statutory rights via § 1983 for arrests, citations, impoundments | Such regulatory-enforcement disputes are about intergovernmental authority and not cognizable under § 1983 | Individuals suing for their own deprivations may bring § 1983 claims; their § 1983 claims survive |
| Whether the Tribe can sue under § 1983 to vindicate sovereign/tribal interests (including parens patriae for members) | Tribe sought to vindicate freedom from state regulation and tribal sovereignty | Defendants contended tribal sovereign interests are not cognizable under § 1983 | The Tribe may not assert sovereign or quasi-sovereign tribal rights under § 1983; parens patriae assertion is unavailable |
| Whether the district court properly excluded historical evidence (Kelsey report) and inferred diminution or title-based exclusion | Plaintiffs relied on Kelsey and the 1907 Order; historical records are admissible as ancient documents | Defendants argued Kelsey report was hearsay and later patents/1853 grant showed exclusion | Kelsey report admissible as ancient document; no evidence of diminishment; later patents do not alter reservation status for § 1151 inquiry |
Key Cases Cited
- Arizona v. California, 373 U.S. 546 (recognizing validity of executive-order reservations in historical context)
- Inyo County v. Paiute-Shoshone Indians of the Bishop Community of the Bishop Colony, 538 U.S. 701 (§ 1983 protects private rights against government encroachment)
- Confederated Tribes of Chehalis Indian Reservation v. Washington, 96 F.3d 334 (9th Cir.) (executive orders liberally construed to protect Indian rights; diminishment not lightly inferred)
- Skokomish Indian Tribe v. United States, 410 F.3d 506 (9th Cir. 2005) (distinguishing individual § 1983 rights from tribal communal rights)
- Navajo Tribe of Indians v. New Mexico, 809 F.2d 1455 (10th Cir. 1987) (difference between title adjudication and reservation-boundary adjudication)
- Romero v. Kitsap County, 931 F.2d 624 (9th Cir. 1991) (example of traditional § 1983 suit challenging arrest on tribal land)
- Idaho v. United States, 533 U.S. 262 (use of historical documents and surveys in reservation-boundary disputes)