Pueblo v. El Paso Cty Water

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 98-51203
(Summary Calendar)
YSLETA DEL SUR PUEBLO,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
EL PASO COUNTY WATER IMPROVEMENT
DISTRICT NO. 1,
Defendant-Appellee.
___________________________________________
SOUTHWESTERN BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY,
Not Party.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
--------------------
April 10, 2000
Before POLITZ, WIENER, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Plaintiff-Appellant The Ysleta Del Sur Pueblo (“Pueblo”)
appeals the district court’s dismissal of its complaint against the
El Paso County Water Improvement District No. 1 (“District”) for
lack of jurisdiction. The Pueblo argues that 1) the district court
erred in determining that the District is the alter ego of the
State of Texas and therefore immune to suit pursuant to the
Eleventh Amendment, 2) Congress abrogated the State’s Eleventh
Amendment immunity in the Indian Non-Intercourse Act, 25 U.S.C. §
177, and 3) the State, by transacting in the Pueblo’s lands,
constructively waived Eleventh Amendment immunity by engaging in an
activity regulated by Congress. Southwestern Bell Telephone
Company (“Southwestern Bell”) has filed a motion for leave to file
an amicus brief out of time, which the District opposes.
We find that Southwestern Bell’s motion is untimely, that the
issue Southwestern Bell seeks to address has been adequately
briefed by the Pueblo and the District, and that granting
Southwestern Bell’s motion would result in the needless delay of
this case’s disposition. See Fed. R. App. P. 29. Accordingly,
Southwestern Bell’s motion is denied.
We have reviewed the record and briefs submitted by the
parties and find that the Pueblo’s arguments lack merit. See
College Sav. Bank v. Florida Prepaid Postsecondary Educ. Expense
Bd., 119 S. Ct. 2219, 2226 (1999); Ysleta Del Sur Pueblo v. Laney,
199 F.3d 281, 286-88 (5th Cir. 2000); Pillsbury Co., Inc. v. Port
of Corpus Christi Authority, 66 F.3d 103, 104 (5th Cir. 1995);
Kamani v. Port of Houston Authority, 702 F.2d 612, 613 (5th Cir.
1983).
AFFIRMED.
2