Maldonado v. HodelMaldonado v. Hodel
- Reporters:
- ,
- Before:
- Tacha, Seth, Brown (per curiam)
ORDER AND JUDGMENT**
PER CURIAM.
Plaintiffs Donna Land Maldonado and Barbara Land Cuch, two “mixed blood” Ute Indians, brought this action against the Secretary of the Interior and the Assistant Secretary of the Interior for declaratory relief relating to certain federal actions taken in the early 1960‘s pursuant to the Ute Partition Act,
An excellent summary of the Act and its implementation is set forth in both the district court‘s published opinion in this action, see Maldonado v. Hodel, 683 F.Supp. 1322, 1323-25 (D.Utah 1988) and in the Supreme Court‘s opinion in Affiliated Ute Citizens v. United States, 406 U.S. 128, 133-39 (1972). As relevant to this decision, it is necessary only to state that the Act provided, among other things, for the termination of mixed-blood Ute Indians as federally recognized Indians and for the partition and distribution of the Ute Indian Tribal assets of the Uintah and Ouray Reservation in Utah between the mixed-blood group and full-blood Ute Indians.
Plaintiffs now claim in this action that the Secretary violated the Act and breached fiduciary duties owed them when he approved the Distribution Plan, promulgated regulations permitting the alienation of UDC stock and issued the proclamation terminating plaintiffs’ status as federally recognized Indians and the federal trust relationship over their property, including the UDC stock. As relief for these alleged errors, plaintiffs seek a declaration that, among other things, they are entitled to receive federal services available to other Indians.
The district court dismissed these claims on the ground that each had been previously litigated and decided, either expressly or impliedly, by the Supreme Court in Affiliated Ute Citizens v. United States, 406 U.S. 128 (1972) and by this court in Reyos v. United States, 431 F.2d 1337 (10th Cir.1970), aff‘d in part and rev‘d in part sub nom. Affiliated Ute Citizens v. United States, 406 U.S. 128 (1972). See Maldonado, 683 F.Supp. at 1327-28. We agree. In Affiliated Ute Citizens, the Supreme Court expressly approved formation of the UDC, and hence also approved the Distribution Plan‘s provision for UDC‘s formation. See 406 U.S. at 136, 143-44. The Court further approved the alienability of UDC stock. See id. at 150 (stating that UDC stock was “free of restriction ... [such that] [t]here was no remaining governmental authority over those shares.“); see also
Given the precedent established by these cases, we agree that plaintiffs have failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted and therefore affirm the district court‘s dismissal of this action. Because we decide this appeal based on an analysis of the merits of plaintiffs’ claims, we do not reach or decide the Secretary‘s additional argument that this action is barred by the statute of limitations stated in
For the reasons stated above, the judgment of the United States District Court for the District of Utah is AFFIRMED.