846 F.3d 1343
Fed. Cir.2017Background
- Todd Murray, a Ute tribal member, was shot near the Uncompahgre Ute Reservation on April 1, 2007; state and local officers pursued him onto reservation land and federal agents (FBI/BIA) later took charge of the scene and investigation.
- Murray was transported off-reservation to a medical center, then to a mortuary and the Office of the Medical Examiner (OME); plaintiffs allege desecration of the body, mishandling of evidence, destruction of an allegedly relevant firearm, and failure to perform an autopsy.
- Plaintiffs (Debra Jones, Arden Post, and the Ute Tribe members) sued in federal district court and unsuccessfully pursued constitutional and state-law claims against state/local officers; the district court and Tenth Circuit found no unconstitutional conduct and ruled no spoliation by the named defendants.
- Plaintiffs then sued the United States in the Court of Federal Claims (CFC) under the bad men provision of the 1868 Ute Treaty and under a trust/breach-of-duty theory, alleging federal officers were “bad men” who committed/were complicit in wrongs and spoliation.
- The CFC dismissed most bad-men claims as limited to affirmative criminal acts occurring on the reservation and applied issue preclusion based on the district-court rulings; it also dismissed the trust claim for failure to identify a specific source creating fiduciary duties.
- The Federal Circuit vacated and remanded: it held the CFC erred by unduly narrowing the bad-men provision, improperly applying issue preclusion without resolving federal-officer spoliation, and by prematurely rejecting off-reservation claims and the possibility that some omissions could be criminally cognizable.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Scope of "any wrong" in the bad men provision (criminal vs. civil/omissions) | "Any wrong" is broad and not limited to affirmative criminal acts; the Ute signatories would have understood "wrong" broadly | Text ties remedy to arrest/punishment, so "any wrong" should be limited to acts that can support arrest/criminal prosecution | Court: "any wrong" is limited to wrongs that could give rise to arrest/criminal prosecution; but declined to definitively decide whether criminal omissions can qualify and remanded for further factual/legal development |
| Geographic scope (on-reservation vs. off-reservation acts) | Off-reservation acts continuing from on-reservation wrongdoing (e.g., desecration, evidence destruction) are cognizable if they are a continuation of on-reservation wrongs | Bad-men claims limited to harms occurring on reservation; off-reservation acts not covered | Court: Treaty does not require a bright-line reservation-only rule; off-reservation acts that are a clear continuation of on-reservation wrongs may be cognizable — remanded for fact-specific inquiry |
| Issue preclusion based on district-court findings (suicide, no conspiracy, spoliation) | District court did not decide federal-officer culpability for spoliation; absence of federal defendants deprived plaintiffs of full and fair opportunity to litigate those issues | District-court determinations (Murray shot himself; no spoliation by named defendants) are identical and conclusive; preclusion bars relitigation | Court: CFC erred applying issue preclusion. Federal-officer spoliation was not litigated or decided; potential spoliation sanctions could alter evidentiary landscape — remand to address spoliation and then reconsider preclusion |
| Breach of trust claim (source of fiduciary duty) | Treaty bad-men provision supplies a source for fiduciary/trust duties breached by Government | No specific statutory/regulatory source imposing fiduciary duties; Navajo Nation standard not met | Court: Breach-of-trust claim depends on bad-men claim; if bad-men violation proven on remand, trust claim may proceed; otherwise it fails |
Key Cases Cited
- Ex parte Kangi-shun-ca, 109 U.S. 556 (1883) (early Supreme Court discussion of "bad men" treaty claims)
- United States v. Navajo Nation, 537 U.S. 488 (2003) (trust-claim source-of-duty requirement)
- Minnesota v. Mille Lacs Band of Chippewa Indians, 526 U.S. 172 (1999) (interpret treaties as Indians would have understood; consider treaty context)
- Richard v. United States, 677 F.3d 1141 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (discussion of geographic limits in Treaty clauses)
- Tsosie v. United States, 825 F.2d 393 (Fed. Cir. 1987) (treaty-purpose context: peace between parties)
- Hebah v. United States, 456 F.2d 704 (Ct. Cl. 1971) (defining "wrong" as action or conduct inflicting harm)
- Janis v. United States, 32 Ct. Cl. 407 (1901) (historical treatment of treaty territoriality and bad-men purpose)
- Campbell v. United States, 44 Ct. Cl. 488 (1909) (treaty-related discussion of injuries from invasion/aggression on reservation territory)