David Robinson v. Sally Jewell
790 F.3d 910
9th Cir.2015Background
- The Kawaiisu, a non-federally recognized Native group, sued claiming title to Tejon Ranch (≈270,000 acres) and a 49,000-acre subset called the Tejon/Sebastian Reservation; defendants include Tejon Ranch entities, the Secretary of the Interior, and Kern County.
- Tejon Ranch comprises four Mexican land grants whose claimants presented to the California Land Claims Commission (Act of 1851); patents were issued between 1863–1875 and later consolidated in Edward F. Beale and successors.
- The Kawaiisu never presented any claim to the 1851 Commission and concede they did not do so within the statutory two-year window.
- The Tribe also invoked the 1849 Treaty with the Utah and an unratified 1851 California treaty (“Treaty D”) and relied on presidential/administrative correspondence (1853 letters) to assert a Tejon/Sebastian Reservation under the 1853 Act.
- The district court dismissed the complaint with prejudice; this appeal challenges dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6). The Ninth Circuit reviews de novo and affirms.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Kawaiisu retained title to Tejon Ranch despite not presenting a claim to the 1851 Commission | Kawaiisu say they held a Spanish/Mexican grant, or rights via the 1849 Utah Treaty or Treaty D, or substantial compliance with the 1851 Act | Defendants say failure to present under the Land Claims Act extinguished any title; unratified treaties or general treaty language create no legal land title | Court: Failure to present to the Commission extinguished title; treaties cited do not convey enforceable title — dismissal affirmed |
| Whether the 1849 Treaty with the Utah recognized aboriginal or legal title | Kawaiisu argue participation/signature conferred rights | Defendants: treaty language contemplates future boundary determinations and does not recognize legal title | Court: Treaty did not recognize or convey aboriginal/legal title; recognition requires clear congressional intent — claim fails |
| Legal effect of Treaty D (1851 California treaty) and whether it substitutes for Commission filing | Kawaiisu: Treaty D participation constitutes substantial compliance with the Act of 1851 or otherwise grants rights | Defendants: Treaty D was never ratified by Senate and thus has no legal effect and cannot substitute for the Commission filing requirement | Court: Treaty D was unratified (nullity) and does not satisfy Act of 1851 — claim fails |
| Whether a Tejon/Sebastian Reservation was validly established under the 1853 Act and survived the 1864 Act | Kawaiisu point to presidential/secretarial letters directing reservation creation and say reservation was not terminated | Defendants: No proclamation/executive order established Tejon Reservation; 1864 Act limited reservations and extinguished any such rights absent clear congressional statement | Court: No reservation was validly established; any alleged reservation rights extinguished by later law — claim fails |
Key Cases Cited
- Manzarek v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 519 F.3d 1025 (9th Cir. 2008) (standard of review for Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal)
- Tee-Hit-Ton Indians v. United States, 348 U.S. 272 (1955) (aboriginal occupancy not recognized as compensable property absent congressional recognition)
- Barker v. Harvey, 181 U.S. 481 (1901) (failure to present Mexican/Spanish grant claims to the 1851 Commission extinguished those claims)
- United States v. Title Insurance & Trust Co., 265 U.S. 472 (1924) (patents issued after presentation to the Commission pass full title free of Indian occupancy rights)
- Mattz v. Arnett, 412 U.S. 481 (1973) (congressional termination of a reservation must be clear on the face of the act or from legislative history)
- Uintah Ute Indians of Utah v. United States, 28 Fed. Cl. 768 (1993) (1849 Treaty with the Utah did not recognize Indian title)