310 P.3d 631
N.M. Ct. App.2013Background
- Hamaatsa, Inc. sues the Pueblo of San Felipe to declare a road that crosses Pueblo land a state public road.
- Pueblo moved to dismiss under Rule 1-012(B)(1) NMRA claiming tribal sovereign immunity; district court denied.
- Road allegedly owned by BLM since 1906; used by the public since 1935; claimed as public road under 43 U.S.C. § 932 and Rev. Stat. § 2477.
- The property containing the road was conveyed to the Pueblo in fee simple in 2001 by the BLM, with a BLM easement retained for public use and later quitclaimed to the Pueblo in 2002.
- District court treated the action as in rem; interlocutory appeal granted; Pueblo challenged jurisdiction on sovereign immunity grounds.
- We affirm the district court’s denial of the Pueblo’s motion to dismiss and remand for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether tribal sovereign immunity bars the action | Hamaatsa argues immunity does not bar a state-law in rem declaration. | Pueblo argues immunity to claims that would affect its sovereignty. | Facial attack insufficient; no basis shown for immunity at this stage. |
| Whether the suit is in rem or in personam | Action is in rem seeking declaratory relief about the road’s status. | Action is essentially in personam/quiet title affecting Pueblo’s ownership. | Action is in rem; tribal immunity does not convert it to in personam. |
| Whether the action seeks quiet title or declaratory relief | Hamaatsa seeks declaration that the road is a public state road. | Pueblo asserts quiet title implications would implicate ownership. | Not a quiet-title action; declaratory relief regarding status of road. |
| Whether the road is a state public road under state law | Allegations show the road has been a public road since early 20th century. | If tribal immunity applies, the state declaration could infringe sovereignty. | Allegations support status as a state public road for purposes of jurisdiction. |
Key Cases Cited
- Kiowa Tribe of Oklahoma v. Manufacturing Technologies, Inc., 523 U.S. 751 (1998) (tribal immunity limits and off-reservation conduct considerations)
- Montana v. United States, 450 U.S. 544 (1981) (tribal authority over non-members on non-tribal land limits immunity)
- Potawatomi, Oklahoma Tax Comm. v. Citizen Band Potawatomi Indian Tribe, 498 U.S. 505 (1991) (recognizes limits to tribal immunity and need for congressional action)
- Jicarilla Apache Tribe v. Bd. of Cnty. Comm’rs, 118 N.M. 550, 883 P.2d 136 (1992) (state-law issue of easement across land purchased by tribe; establishes state-court jurisdiction)
- Oneida Indian Nation of New York v. Madison County (Oneida I), 401 F. Supp. 2d 219 (2005) (in rem vs. in personam analysis in tribal-immunity context)
- Armijo v. Pueblo of Laguna, 2011-NMCA-006, 149 P.3d 1119 (2011) (tribal immunity applied as a jurisdictional question beyond location of property)