Torres v. Wickliffe , 47 F. App'x 537 ( 2002 )

F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
SEP 11 2002
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
REBECCA TORRES, Individually,
and as Chief of the Alabama-Quassarte
Tribal Town of Oklahoma; MICHAEL
W. RICHARDS; ESTHER
HOLLOWAY; THE No. 01-7138
ALABAMA-QUASSARTE TRIBAL (D.C. No. 00-CV-323-S)
TOWN OF OKLAHOMA, a federally (E.D. Oklahoma)
recognized Indian Tribe,
Plaintiffs - Appellants,
v.
DENNIS L. WICKLIFF, Individually
and as Acting Eastern Oklahoma
Regional Director of the Bureau of
Indian Affairs of the United States
Department of the Interior; DENNIS
SPRINGWATER, Individually; and
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendants - Appellees,
and
ALISON ALEXANDER;
GOVERNING COMMITTEE OF THE
ALABAMA-QUASSARTE TRIBAL
TOWN,
Defendants-Intervenors-
Appellees.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before MURPHY , ANDERSON , and HARTZ , Circuit Judges.
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
unanimously to grant the parties’ request for a decision on the briefs without oral
argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(f); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore
ordered submitted without oral argument.
Liberally construed, the plaintiffs’ complaint seeks damages against the
individual defendants and injunctive relief against the United States and the
individual defendants in their official capacities. The district court ultimately
denied injunctive relief, granted partial summary judgment to the individual
defendants on the ground of qualified immunity, denied partial summary judgment
to plaintiffs, and dismissed the case. Plaintiffs appeal. We have jurisdiction
under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We affirm.
This suit concerns the Alabama-Quassarte Tribal Town of Oklahoma (the
Town), an Indian tribe of fewer than five hundred persons. Plaintiffs are the
Town and three persons whose tribal membership is disputed: Rebecca Torres,
*
This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the
doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court
generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order
and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.
-2-
Michael W. Richards, and Esther Holloway. Defendants are the United States and
two officials of the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), Dennis L. Wickliffe and
Dennis Springwater. Intervenors are the Governing Committee of the Town (the
Interim Committee) and Alison Alexander, a Town member.
A tribal election was held in May 1997. Torres was elected Town Chief
and Richards was elected to the Town Governing Committee. At about the same
time, a dispute concerning the tribe’s official membership came to a head. The
BIA was asked to help determine the membership according to the requirements
of the Town’s Constitution and By-laws. After a review, it was determined that
those requirements were not met by 277 Town members, including Torres and
Richards. Although the BIA had previously recognized Torres and Richards as
Town officials for government-to-government purposes, the BIA withdrew its
recognition on June 14, 2000, because of questions about their eligibility to hold
Town office and their lack of action to resolve the membership dispute. The BIA
then recognized the Interim Committee as the interim Town government until the
membership dispute could be resolved.
The district court determined that the individual defendants were entitled to
qualified immunity on the damage claims because plaintiffs failed to show that
they violated any clearly established law. The court discerned no claims against
-3-
the United States except a claim for injunctive relief, which it denied. The court
denied plaintiffs’ cross-motion for partial summary judgment.
We review de novo the district court’s grant of summary judgment based on
qualified immunity. Nelson v. McMullen , 207 F.3d 1202, 1205 (10th Cir. 2000).
Our review of the grant of summary judgment is somewhat different in this
context, however. Id. at 1205-06. When a defendant raises the qualified
immunity defense on summary judgment, the plaintiff’s burden is two-fold.
First, the plaintiff must demonstrate that the defendant’s actions
violated a constitutional or statutory right. Second, the plaintiff must
show that the constitutional or statutory rights the defendant
allegedly violated were clearly established at the time of the conduct
at issue. If, and only if, the plaintiff meets this two-part test does a
defendant then bear the traditional burden of . . . showing that there
are no genuine issues of material fact and that he or she is entitled to
judgment as a matter of law.
Id. at 1206 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
Plaintiffs state the following issues on appeal: (1) defendants “acted
contrary to modern federal policy” when they made their own determination of
tribal membership and then removed elected officials of the Town; (2) defendants
acted arbitrarily, capriciously, and in violation of law and their own policy; and
(3) the district court erred when it granted the motion to intervene.
As the district court observed, however, plaintiffs’ contentions “are
frustratingly vague on the specific right or law that they contend gives rise to
their claims . . . .” The district court patiently and thoroughly addressed what it
-4-
perceived to be plaintiffs’ arguments, and it rejected them all. On appeal
plaintiffs still fail to point with any specificity to legal standards that the
defendants allegedly breached. Plaintiffs have simply not presented a
comprehensible reasoned argument. We will not craft their argument for them.
Perry v. Woodward , 199 F.3d 1126, 1141 n.13 (10th Cir. 1999); see Fed. R. App.
P. 28(a)(8)-(9). In the absence of argument in plaintiffs’ briefs showing any error
in the analysis contained in the district court’s order, we affirm for essentially the
reasons set forth in that order.
With respect to the order granting the motion to intervene, plaintiffs have
failed to show, or even argue, how that order led to any reversible error.
The judgment is AFFIRMED.
Entered for the Court
Harris L Hartz
Circuit Judge
-5-