Earline Cole v. Matthew Oravec, 700 F. App'x 602

Background

Steven Bearcrane, a Crow Nation member, was shot to death on the Crow Reservation; the FBI investigated and classified the death as a non-crime.
Bearcrane family members (Earlene Cole, Cleteus Cole, Precious Bearcrane) sued the FBI Salt Lake City Field Office and Agent Oravec for violations of equal protection, substantive due process, and treaty rights; they brought claims in individual and representative capacities.
District court dismissed the plaintiffs’ individual-capacity claims for lack of standing; plaintiffs appealed only those individual-capacity dismissals.
Plaintiffs alleged multiple injuries: denial of access to crime-victim benefits (because death was classified a non-crime), inferior law-enforcement protection, emotional/economic harms, evidentiary destruction, and disparaging remarks by Agent Oravec.
Ninth Circuit: affirmed dismissal of substantive due process and treaty claims for lack of standing; held plaintiffs have standing, in their individual capacities, to pursue an equal protection claim based on the alleged discriminatory denial of access to victims’ benefits, but otherwise lacked standing for other alleged injuries.
On the merits at pleading stage, the court found plaintiffs plausibly alleged an equal protection claim against the FBI (facially neutral action with discriminatory effect and alleged intent); qualified immunity issues for Oravec were remanded to the district court.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Standing for equal protection claims in plaintiffs’ individual capacities	Plaintiffs say FBI bias against Native Americans denied them access to victims’ benefits and unequal law‑enforcement protection, causing concrete injuries.	Defendants argued plaintiffs lacked cognizable, particularized injuries and causal traceability for standing.	Plaintiffs have standing to bring an equal protection claim based on the denial of access to crime‑victim benefits; other alleged injuries are generalized and do not confer standing.
Standing for substantive due process and treaty‑based claims	Plaintiffs claimed stigmatization and denial of basic safety from biased law enforcement.	Defendants said these injuries are generalized/indirect and not judicially redressable.	Plaintiffs lack standing for substantive due process and treaty claims; those claims were properly dismissed.
Sufficiency of equal protection pleadings against the FBI (Rule 12(b)(6))	Plaintiffs alleged disparate impact (statistics), FBI abdication of investigations, destroyed evidence, supervisory ratification, and discriminatory remarks to infer intent.	Defendants disputed that allegations plausibly show discriminatory intent or a pattern/practice by the FBI.	The complaint plausibly pleaded discriminatory impact plus intent to discriminate as required to survive dismissal against the FBI; the claim proceeds.
Qualified immunity for Agent Oravec	Plaintiffs: Oravec interfered with victims’ benefits and made disparaging remarks; official capacity claim not challenged here.	Oravec raised qualified immunity grounds not fully addressed below.	Qualified immunity argument not resolved on appeal; remanded to district court for initial determination.

Key Cases Cited

Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (standing requires injury, causation, redressability)
Northeastern Fla. Chapter of Associated Gen. Contractors v. City of Jacksonville, 508 U.S. 656 (standing for challenge to government "barrier" denying equal opportunity to compete)
Barnes-Wallace v. City of San Diego, 704 F.3d 1067 (9th Cir. 2012) (standing analysis where government program confers preferential access)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (pleading standard for plausibility and inference of discriminatory intent)
Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 136 S. Ct. 1540 (concreteness requirement for injury in fact)
Village of Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Dev. Corp., 429 U.S. 252 (disproportionate impact relevant but not dispositive of discriminatory intent)