Chavez v. Navajo Nation Tribal Courts

FILED
United States Court of Appeals
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT May 16, 2012
Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court
RUSSELL W. CHAVEZ,
Plaintiff-Appellant, No. 11-2203
(D.C. No. 1:11-CV-00601-LFG-KBM)
v. (D. N.M.)
NAVAJO NATION TRIBAL COURTS;
NAVAJO NATION TRIBE; THOMAS
HOLGATE, District Court Judge, Navajo
Nation District Court; HERB YAZZIE,
Chief Justice Judge, Supreme Court of
Navajo Nation; E. SHIRLEY, Associate
Justice Judge, Supreme Court of Navajo
Nation; BEN SHELLY, JR., Navajo
Tribal President,
Defendants-Appellees.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT*
Before BRISCOE, Chief Judge, PORFILIO, Senior Circuit Judge, and MURPHY,
Circuit Judge.
*
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of this
appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore
ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding
precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral
estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with
Fed. R App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.
Russell W. Chavez is a member of the Navajo Nation, a federally recognized
Indian Tribe. He filed in federal district court a pro se 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights
complaint against the Navajo Nation and various Tribal officials. Defendants moved
to dismiss the case for failure to state a claim under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).
The district court dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction. The court held
that Mr. Chavez’s lawsuit against the Tribal officials could not be maintained in
federal court under §1983 because all of his challenges to the Tribal officials’ actions
relied on Tribal law. See Burrell v. Armijo, 456 F.3d 1159, 1174 (10th Cir. 2006)
(“A § 1983 action is unavailable for persons alleging deprivation of constitutional
rights under color of tribal law, as opposed to state law.” (internal quotation marks
omitted)); see also Polk Cnty. v. Dodson, 454 U.S. 312, 315 (1981) (observing that
acting under color of state law is “a jurisdictional requisite for a § 1983 action”).
Turning to the Tribe, the court held--after noting that Mr. Chavez failed to even
address the Navajo Nation’s sovereignty--that Congress had not authorized suit
“against tribal entities pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.” R. at 631. See Nanomantube
v. Kickapoo Tribe in Kan., 631 F.3d 1150, 1152 (10th Cir. 2011) (“[A]n Indian tribe
is not subject to suit in a federal or state court unless the tribe’s sovereign immunity
has been either abrogated by Congress or waived by the tribe.”); E.F.W. v.
St. Stephen’s Indian High Sch., 264 F.3d 1297, 1302-03 (10th Cir. 2001) (observing
that tribal sovereign immunity “is a matter of subject matter jurisdiction”).
Mr. Chavez appeals.
-2-
Our jurisdiction arises under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review the district court’s
dismissal de novo. Nanomantube, 631 F.3d at 1151. In so doing, we afford all of
Mr. Chavez’s pro se filings “a solicitous construction.” Van Deelen v. Johnson,
497 F.3d 1151, 1153 n.1 (10th Cir. 2007).
We have undertaken a thorough review of the parties’ briefs, the record, and
the applicable law and conclude that Mr. Chavez has not identified any reversible
error in this case. We therefore AFFIRM the judgment of the district court for
substantially the same reasons stated by the magistrate judge (sitting by the consent
of the parties) in his September 14, 2011, memorandum opinion and order.
Entered for the Court
Mary Beck Briscoe
Chief Judge
-3-