Lyon v. Gila River Indian Community
626 F.3d 1059
| 9th Cir. | 2010Background
- Dispute between Gila River Indian Community and Trustee over Section 16, a 657-acre parcel completely surrounded by Reservation land.
- Section 16 access may occur via Smith-Enke Road and Murphy Road across Reservation land.
- Historical grant: Section 16 was conveyed to Arizona in 1877 as school lands; Reservation borders later expanded to surround Section 16 (1883, 1913).
- Community asserted aboriginal title, zoning authority, and trespass remedies; Trustee claimed implied easement and rights of access.
- District court held United States not indispensable for aboriginal title; held implied easement over Smith-Enke and Murphy Roads and that IRR/public road status issues required further analysis; cross-appeals addressed RS 2477 roads and laches; zoning issue not ripe.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Rule 19 joinder for indispensable parties. | Lyon: United States indispensable for access rights and aboriginal title in this context. | Community: US indispensable due to sovereign interests. | US not indispensable for aboriginal title; Puyallup exception applies; not indispensable for access claims. |
| Existence of implied easement from 1877 school-land grant. | Lyon: implied easement to access Section 16 passed with grant and conveyed to subsequent owners. | Community: implied easement not intended to survive expansion of Reservation. | Implied easement exists and survives to subsequent owners. |
| R.S. 2477 roads: Smith-Enke and Murphy as public highways. | Trustee seeks declaration that roads are RS 2477 roads; Arizona actions may create highways. | Community: Reservation expansion removed public status; no RS 2477 roads. | Smith-Enke and Murphy are not RS 2477 roads; Reservation expansion affected public lands. |
| Aboriginal title extinguishment in 1877. | Lyon: grant to Arizona extinguished aboriginal title. Trustee prevails. | Community: aboriginal title survives unless extinguished by clear action. | Aboriginal title extinguished by 1877 conveyance. |
| Ripeness of zoning authority claim. | Community seeks to preempt future housing development on Section 16. | Pinal County zoning not currently changing; issue premature. | Zoning issue not ripe; vacate/remand pending further development. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Gemmill, 535 F.2d 1145 (9th Cir. 1976) (aboriginal title is permissive occupancy; extinguishment may occur by federal action)
- Puyallup Indian Tribe v. Port of Tacoma, 717 F.2d 1251 (9th Cir. 1983) (Puyallup exception: tribe protecting Indian land; US not indispensable under Rule 19(b))
- Minnesota v. United States, 305 U.S. 382 (1938) (insistence on US as indispensable party in condemnation on reservation lands)
- Carlson v. Tulalip Tribes of Wash., 510 F.2d 1337 (9th Cir. 1975) (US indispensable to quiet title in Indian lands held in trust)
- Adams v. United States, 3 F.3d 1254 (9th Cir. 1993) (easements over federal lands; regulatory preemption considerations)
- Fitzgerald v. United States, 460 F.3d 1259 (9th Cir. 2006) (liberal construction of school-land grants; implied rights of access permissible)
- Koniag, Inc. v. Koncor Forest Resource, 39 F.3d 991 (9th Cir. 1994) (context for implied rights in government conveyances; factors considered)