Rahne Pistor v. Carlos Garcia
2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 11191
| 9th Cir. | 2015Background
- Plaintiffs (advantage gamblers) were detained at the Mazatzal Hotel & Casino (tribal casino) by three tribal employees who handcuffed, questioned them, and seized cash/personal property that has not been returned.
- Plaintiffs sued the tribal employees individually for damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment claims) and state tort claims.
- Tribal employees moved to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1), invoking tribal sovereign immunity, asserting they acted in official capacities under tribal authority.
- The district court denied the motion, treating tribal immunity as an affirmative defense and alternatively concluding plaintiffs had stated § 1983 individual-capacity claims.
- The Ninth Circuit reviewed whether tribal sovereign immunity bars suits against tribal officials sued in their individual capacities and whether the district court erred in its procedural approach.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether tribal sovereign immunity bars suit against tribal officers sued in their individual capacities | Pistor: Officers can be sued individually; damages sought from officers personally | Defs: As tribal employees acting within official duties, they share the Tribe’s sovereign immunity | Held: Officers sued in individual capacities are not entitled to tribal sovereign immunity; suit may proceed (Maxwell rule) |
| Whether tribal sovereign immunity is a jurisdictional ground requiring dismissal under Rule 12(b)(1) | Pistor: District court correctly treated immunity as an affirmative defense and could proceed | Defs: Sovereign immunity is quasi‑jurisdictional and properly raised in 12(b)(1) | Held: Sovereign immunity is quasi‑jurisdictional and may be asserted via 12(b)(1); district court erred to refuse consideration of the jurisdictional motion on that basis |
| Whether acting under color of state vs. tribal law affects the sovereign immunity inquiry | Pistor: Alleged conspiracy with state actors; color‑of‑state allegation relevant to liability | Defs: Whether acting under state law is relevant to § 1983 merits, not to immunity | Held: Color‑of‑state‑law is irrelevant to tribal immunity analysis (but is essential to § 1983 liability) |
| Whether the Tribe is the real party in interest such that judgment would affect tribal treasury or governance | Pistor: Plaintiffs seek damages from individuals, not Tribe; Tribe not real party in interest | Defs: Actions taken under tribal authority and tribal ordinances show Tribe is involved | Held: Plaintiffs seek individual relief; Tribe is not the real, substantial party in interest; immunity does not bar the individual‑capacity suit |
Key Cases Cited
- Maxwell v. County of San Diego, 708 F.3d 1075 (9th Cir. 2013) (individual‑capacity suits against tribal officers generally not barred by tribal sovereign immunity; remedy‑focused analysis)
- Cook v. AVI Casino Enterps., Inc., 548 F.3d 718 (9th Cir. 2008) (tribal sovereign immunity extends to official‑capacity suits because the tribe is the real party in interest)
- Miller v. Wright, 705 F.3d 919 (9th Cir. 2013) (official‑capacity suits against tribal officials are suits against the tribe and barred by immunity)
- Alden v. Maine, 527 U.S. 706 (1999) (distinguishes personal‑capacity suits seeking money from officer personally from suits that reach the sovereign treasury)
- Shermoen v. United States, 982 F.2d 1312 (9th Cir. 1992) (factors for when immunity is implicated by a judgment that would affect sovereign administration or treasury)
- Evans v. McKay, 869 F.2d 1341 (9th Cir. 1989) (§ 1983 cannot be maintained for acts under color of tribal law; color‑of‑state‑law is a merits question)
- Hardin v. White Mountain Apache Tribe, 779 F.2d 476 (9th Cir. 1985) (official‑capacity claim that would interfere with tribal governance is barred by immunity)