Eastern Pequot Tribal Nation v. Salazar
934 F. Supp. 2d 272
D.D.C.2013Background
- Plaintiff Historic Eastern Pequots seeks review of an IBIA Reconsidered Final Decision denying federal recognition of the tribe.
- The RFD followed an earlier Final Determination (2002) that the EP and PEP satisfied seven federal acknowledgment criteria, which the IBIA later vacated and remanded (2005).
- Plaintiff’s prior entity, the Eastern Pequot Tribal Nation, disclaimed the suit; the court allowed substitution to Historic Eastern Pequots (2012).
- Defendants moved to dismiss or transfer, arguing lack of subject matter jurisdiction and statute of limitations issues.
- Plaintiff amended the complaint; Counts I–VII challenge the RFD under the APA, while Counts VIII–IX raise tort/antitrust-type theories and FTCA questions.
- The court finds lack of standing and lack of jurisdiction, leading to dismissal of the entire action.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plaintiff has standing | Historic Eastern Pequots claim injury from RFD. | Standing unclear; plaintiff not in privity with RFD as the entity affected. | Lacks standing; no jurisdiction. |
| Whether Counts I–VII are time-barred | APA claims relate to agency action and tolling theories. | Action not filed within six-year limitations from RFD publication. | Counts I–VII dismissed as time-barred. |
| Whether Counts VIII–IX have jurisdiction under the APA or FTCA | Counts VIII–IX fall within agency action or related waivers. | Tort claims seek money damages; APA does not authorize such claims; FTCA exhaustion not shown. | Counts VIII–IX dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. |
| Whether any other jurisdictional basis supports the suit | Jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1337 and related statutes. | No express waiver; Section 1337 insufficient for sovereign immunity waiver. | No jurisdiction; dismissal affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) (standing requires injury, causation, redressability)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (pleading must be plausible, not merely speculative)
- Impro. Prods., Inc. v. Block, 722 F.2d 845 (D.C. Cir. 1983) (accrual of an agency-action claim; six-year limitations apply)
- Spannus v. Dep’t of Justice, 824 F.2d 52 (D.C. Cir. 1987) (accrual and limitations for agency challenges)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (pleading standard: plausible claims required)