530 F. App'x 777
10th Cir.2013Background
- Greene is the great-grandson of Bennie Vinson, a Choctaw Indian Freedman listed on 1906 rolls.
- Greene sought a Certificate of Degree of Indian Blood (CDIB) to qualify for government assistance.
- BIA denied Greene’s CDIB request because he could not prove direct lineage to a Choctaw enrollee with blood degree on the 1906 rolls.
- In 2010 Greene asked for an application form to enable descendants of Indian Freedmen to pursue federal recognition; the Superintendent refused, stating no such form exists.
- Greene sued BIA officials, claiming due process violations for denying the form; district court dismissed, and this appeal concerns the due process/constitutional claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the failure to provide an application form violated due process. | Greene asserts due process right to obtain an application form for recognition. | Officials contend no due process violation and no such form exists; any discrimination not shown. | No due process violation; form does not exist and discrimination not shown. |
| Whether the claim implicates equal protection or race-based discrimination. | Greene relies on equal protection by challenging the form denial. | Distinctions are between blood and non-blood Choctaw; not racial discrimination; based on status as Indians. | Fifth Amendment Due Process analysis applies; no racial discrimination established. |
| Whether Greene states a cognizable constitutional claim given the CDIB framework. | Greene seeks recognition to access programs via CDIB. | CDIB relies on Dawes Rolls; no form to seek recognition without blood quantum; no violation shown. | Claim fails because CDIB framework is not shown to violate constitution. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Antelope, 430 U.S. 641 (1977) (federal status of Indians under sovereignty)
- Morton v. Mancari, 417 U.S. 535 (1974) (employment preferences for Indians related to quasi-sovereign status)
- Davis v. United States (I), 192 F.3d 951 (10th Cir. 1999) (CDIB and blood quantum prerequisites; rolls-based criteria)
- Davis ex rel. Davis v. United States (II), 343 F.3d 1282 (10th Cir. 2003) (CDIB framework reaffirmed; Dawes Commission rolls significance)
- Washington v. Davis, 426 U.S. 229 (1976) (equal protection principles applied to constitutional equal protection analyses)
- Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (1982) (qualified immunity framework for officials)