Jones v. United States
122 Fed. Cl. 490
Fed. Cl.2015Background
- On April 1, 2007, Ute tribal member Todd Murray was shot during a police pursuit that began off-reservation and ended on the Uintah and Ouray Reservation; state officers and later FBI and BIA personnel responded. Plaintiffs allege Murray was executed and that state and federal officers covered up the killing and spoliated evidence.
- Plaintiffs (Murray’s parents and the Ute Tribe) sued in Utah federal court (Jones v. Norton) asserting §1983/§1985 and related claims; the district court granted summary judgment for defendants, concluding Murray’s death was self-inflicted and rejecting the conspiracy/spoliation theories; appeals were pending.
- Plaintiffs sent a March 12, 2013 “notice of claim” to Department of the Interior and filed suit in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims (2013), asserting violations of the 1863 and 1868 Ute Treaties (notably the 1868 “bad men” clause) and a breach of trust seeking $10 million.
- The United States moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction and failure to state a claim, arguing plaintiffs failed to exhaust treaty-administered remedies, that many alleged harms are omissions (not “wrongs”) outside the bad-men clause, and that breach-of-trust claims lack a money‑mandating source.
- The Court of Federal Claims found the March 12, 2013 letter satisfied treaty notice/exhaustion (or that exhaustion could be excused) but held (1) the bad‑men provision covers only affirmative criminal acts and plaintiffs pled mostly omissions, (2) some remaining affirmative-act allegations were precluded by the prior Utah district-court judgment (issue preclusion), and (3) plaintiffs failed to identify a money-mandating source for breach‑of‑trust relief. The amended complaint was dismissed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether treaty administrative exhaustion (Art. 5) is jurisdictional and satisfied | March 12, 2013 notice to DOI suffices; exhaustion requirement was met or is non-jurisdictional | Treaty requires administrative proof forwarded to Commissioner before suit; plaintiffs did not exhaust | Notice letter plus facts here satisfied exhaustion or exhaustion excused (court took jurisdiction) |
| Whether the 1868 “bad men” clause states a money‑mandating claim under the Tucker Act | The clause creates a private cause to recover for wrongs committed by non‑Indians; DOJ/BIA/FBI actions implicated | Many alleged harms are omissions; clause covers only affirmative criminal acts and identified individuals (not agencies) | Bad‑men clause is money‑mandating but covers only affirmative criminal “wrongs”; omissions and off‑reservation acts dismissed; some affirmative allegations survived pleading but were later precluded |
| Whether issue preclusion bars relitigation of factual matters decided in Jones v. Norton (district court) | District court rulings are on appeal; preclusion inappropriate because appeal pending and plaintiffs lacked evidence due to alleged spoliation | District court’s detailed summary‑judgment decision is final for collateral‑estoppel purposes; plaintiffs had full and fair chance to litigate | All four collateral‑estoppel elements met; core factual issues (cause of death, spoliation/conspiracy) are precluded |
| Whether plaintiffs state a breach‑of‑trust claim that is money‑mandating | Treaties (Arts. 2,5,6,10) and trust relationship impose fiduciary duties to protect reservation and prosecute bad men | Treaty language imposes discretionary prosecutorial duties; plaintiffs identify no specific statute/regulation that creates money‑mandating fiduciary duties | Plaintiffs did not identify a statutory/regulatory source creating specific money‑mandating fiduciary duties; breach‑of‑trust claims dismissed for lack of jurisdiction |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Navajo Nation, 556 U.S. 287 (2009) (Tucker Act requires a money‑mandating source beyond the Act itself)
- United States v. Mitchell, 463 U.S. 206 (1983) (framework for money‑mandating trust claims against the United States)
- Hebah v. United States, 456 F.2d 696 (Ct. Cl.) (1972) (definition of “wrong” under bad‑men clause; focus on affirmative wrongful acts)
- Elk v. United States, 70 Fed. Cl. 405 (2006) (treaty exhaustion under certain 1868 treaties does not always require awaiting an agency decision)
- Richard v. United States, 677 F.3d 1141 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (individuals, not agencies, are proper subjects of bad‑men claims)
- Tsosie v. United States, 825 F.2d 393 (Fed. Cir. 1987) (application of 1868 bad‑men provisions)
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (pleading standard: factual allegations must plausibly show entitlement to relief)