994 F. Supp. 2d 1168
W.D. Wash.2014Background
- Skokomish Indian Tribe sues over Article 4 hunting rights under Treaty of Point No Point, seeking broad rights and regulatory authority.
- Map and pleading allege multiple ceded and traditional use lands with rights claimed by other tribes as well.
- Defendants include state agencies (DNR, WDFW) and county prosecutors who allegedly threaten enforcement actions under tribe's treaty interpretation.
- District court considers standing, Eleventh Amendment immunity, Rule 12(b)(6), and Rule 19 issues before merits.
- Court dismisses for lack of indispensable-party joinder ( Rule 19 ) without prejudice, grants partial 12(b)(6) eviction for Goldmark/Young, and allows amendment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does Skokomish have Article III standing? | Tribe alleges imminent enforcement threats and past prosecutions. | No concrete injury; standing lacking. | Yes, standing shown via genuine threat of prosecution |
| Are state-officials immune under the Eleventh Amendment? | Ex Parte Young allows suits for prospective relief against state officers. | Goldmark/Young immune; others fall under Ex Parte Young. | Goldmark/Young dismissed; Ferguson/Wasden grounds sustain Ex Parte Young; Gov’t officials connected to enforcement may be sued |
| Do 12(b)(6) challenges bar Skokomish claims against Goldmark and Young? | Claims against the officials arise from enforcement threats. | No plausible link to threatened enforcement; failure to state a claim. | Yes, claims against Goldmark/Young dismissed under 12(b)(6); remaining claims survive |
| Must absent signatory tribes be joined under Rule 19? | Tributary rights are independent; must proceed. | Absent tribes have sovereign immunity; cannot be joined; action should be dismissed. | Absent signatories are required parties; equity and good conscience require dismissal without prejudice |
| Should the case be dismissed with or without prejudice and can amendment cure defects? | Amendment could address pleading flaws; continue litigation. | Dismissal warranted; amendment may be possible; leave to amend granted. | Dismissal without prejudice; leave to amend granted within 20 days |
Key Cases Cited
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (U.S. 1992) (standing requires injury in fact, causation, and redressability)
- Oklevueha Native American Church of Hawaii v. Holder, 676 F.3d 829 (9th Cir. 2012) (genuine threat of prosecution; actual enforcement supports standing)
- Makah Indian Tribe v. Verity, 910 F.2d 558 (9th Cir. 1990) (treaty rights, allocation of resources; absent tribes as necessary parties)
- Northern Arapaho Tribe v. Harnsberger, 697 F.3d 1272 (10th Cir. 2012) (Rule 19 interests and absence impact; enduring treaty rights)
- Alto v. Black, 738 F.3d 1111 (9th Cir. 2013) (indispensability analysis rejected as controlling; different context)