Robinson v. Salazar
838 F. Supp. 2d 1006
E.D. Cal.2012Background
- Plaintiffs are the Kawaiisu Tribe of Tejón and David Laughing Horse Robinson seeking rights to 270,000 acres of Tejón Ranch in Kern County against TMV, TRC, Kern, and Secretary Salazar.
- Defendants TMV/TRC are private developers; Kern County approved the Tejón Mountain Village development with an Environmental Impact Report.
- Plaintiffs allege aboriginal and treaty-based land rights, asserting rights to occupy and to protect graves and cultural items; they also seek declaratory relief against Salazar and various statutory claims (NIA, NAGPRA, CEQA).
- The court analyzes title claims under the 1851 Act and Treaty Guadalupe Hidalgo, and treaties including the Treaty with the Utah and Treaty D, arguing issues of occupancy and reservation status.
- The Tejon/Sebastian Reservation is disputed as a current reservation; the court discusses whether it was an established, de facto, or non-existent entity.
- The court grants in part and denies in part the motions to dismiss, permits leave to amend on some claims, and discusses deferral to the BIA for tribal status and limitations under NIA, NAGPRA, and §1983.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Effect of 1851 Act on aboriginal title | Aboriginal title persists; patents do not extinguish occupancy rights. | 1851 Act extinguishes aboriginal title when claims aren’t presented and patents issued terminate occupancy rights. | Aboriginal title extinguished where patents issued; claims barred absent amendment. |
| Treaty Utah rights and Tejon/Sebastian Reservation status | Treaty with Utah provides rights and creates reservation benefits in California for Kawaiisu. | Treaty with Utah does not reserve land in California and Treaty D is unratified and lacks force; no current reservation recognized. | Treaty Utah rights not plausibly established for CA land; Tejon/Sebastian Reservation not established; no current reservation. |
| Non-Intercourse Act standing | NIA protects tribal rights to land; tribe should be recognized and able to sue. | Plaintiffs lack a defined tribal status under Montoya/Candelaria; NIA requires a tribe with legitimacy. | Plaintiff tribe lacks defined tribal status; NIA claims dismissed without leave to amend. |
| NAGPRA viability | Graves and cultural items on land designated as tribal lands; NAGPRA applies. | Lands are private/land claims not tribal or federal; NAGPRA does not apply. | NAGPRA claim dismissed with leave to amend on land-claim basis. |
| Civil rights claim under §1983 against Kern | Kern violated rights by permitting land development affecting tribal rights. | Tribe not a 'person' under §1983; Monell concerns absent. | §1983 claim against Kern dismissed with prejudice; Monell policy requirement also unmet. |
Key Cases Cited
- Barker v. Harvey, 181 U.S. 481 (1901) (1851 Act bar where claims not presented to commission)
- Title Insurance & Trust Co. v. United States, 265 U.S. 472 (1924) (Tejón Indians lost occupancy rights when claims not presented; patents vest full title)
- United States ex rel. Chunie v. Ringrose, 788 F.2d 638 (9th Cir. 1986) (aboriginal title extinguished by failure to present in 1851 proceedings)
- Montoya v. United States, 180 U.S. 261 (1901) (defines tribe for NIA-like purposes)
- Washington v. Washington State Commercial Passenger Fishing Vessel Ass’n, 443 U.S. 658 (1979) (treaty rights vest at signing; tribal status matters for rights enforcement)
- Greene v. Babbitt, 64 F.3d 1266 (9th Cir. 1995) (treaty rights may vest irrespective of federal recognition status)
- Golden Hill Paugussett Indian Tribe v. Weicker, 39 F.3d 51 (2d Cir. 1994) (deference to BIA recognition in primary jurisdiction context)
- Mattz v. Arnett, 412 U.S. 481 (1973) (reservation status and actions under 1864 Act)