UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
)
STOCKBRIDGE-MUNSEE COMMUNITY, )
)
Plaintiff, )
) Civil Action No. 08-1031 (EGS)
v. )
)
UNITED STATES OF )
AMERICA, et al., )
)
Defendants. )
)
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Plaintiff, the Stockbridge-Munsee Community, Band of Mohican
Indians (“the Stockbridge-Munsee” or “Plaintiff”), challenges the
Department of Interior’s (“Interior”) May 23, 2008 decision to
take certain lands located in New York into trust for the benefit
of another tribe, the Oneida Indian Nation of New York.
Plaintiff also names the Secretary of Interior and the Associate
Deputy Secretary of Interior, in their official capacities, as
Defendants (collectively, with Interior, “Defendants”).
Plaintiff argues that some of the land Defendants seek to take
into trust is within the historical boundaries of Stockbridge-
Munsee tribal land. Plaintiff seeks both declaratory and
injunctive relief to set aside Interior’s decision under the
Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”). Defendants seek to
transfer the case to the Northern District of New York where six
1
other challenges to the same administrative action are pending.
Upon consideration of Defendants’ Motion, Plaintiff’s Opposition,
Defendants’ Reply, the applicable case law, the entire record
herein, and for the reasons discussed below, this Court GRANTS
Defendants’ Motion to Transfer Venue and to Suspend Obligation to
Answer in the District Court.
I. BACKGROUND
The United States can acquire and take land into trust for
the benefit of individual Indians and tribes, pursuant to “the
authorities, policy, and procedures” of 25 C.F.R. § 151.
Interior, the agency empowered to take lands into trust under the
regulations, must notify the state and local governments having
jurisdiction over the land to be acquired. Id. § 151.10.
Interior must also consider the potential impact of the
acquisition on regulatory jurisdiction and real estate taxes.
Id. When Interior places land into trust, the placement preempts
state and local regulation of the use of the land. See Act of
May 25, 1926, ch. 379, 44 Stat. 629 (formerly codified at 43
U.S.C. §§ 733-736 (1975)); 25 U.S.C. § 465; 43 C.F.R. § 2564.4;
25 C.F.R. §§ 1.4, 152.22.
In the 1970s, the Oneida Nation filed a lawsuit claiming
that certain lands were improperly taken from the Nation by the
state of New York. See, e.g., Oneida Indian Nation of N.Y. v.
2
Oneida County, 414 U.S. 661 (1974). In 1986, the Stockbridge-
Munsee filed a land claim in the Northern District of New York
against the state, surrounding counties, and the New York Highway
Department. See Stockbridge-Munsee Cmty. v. New York, No. 86-
1140 (N.D.N.Y. filed Oct. 15, 1986). The Oneida Nation
intervened in the Stockbridge-Munsee suit, claiming an interest
in the land at issue. The Stockbridge-Munsee filed an amended
complaint in 2004, arguing that the land it challenged was never
part of an Oneida reservation.
After the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Oneida Nation
could not unilaterally assert tribal immunity over land it
recently acquired in the City of Oneida, New York, see City of
Sherrill v. Oneida Indian Nation of N.Y., 544 U.S. 197, 220-21
(2005), the Oneida Nation petitioned Interior to acquire title to
approximately 17,370 acres of real property in trust for the
Oneida Nation. The land spans Madison and Oneida counties in the
north-westerly part of the state of New York.
In accordance with the regulatory scheme of the National
Environmental Policy Act, 42 U.S.C. § 432 et seq., Interior
consulted with the state of New York and the local governments,
and reviewed the comments received by the Stockbridge-Munsee. On
May 23, 2008, Interior issued a decision taking approximately
13,000 acres into trust for the Oneida Nation.
3
The Stockbridge-Munsee Community is an Indian tribe
recognized by the United States. On June 17, 2008, the
Stockbridge-Munsee filed a Complaint with this Court naming the
United States, Interior, Dirk Kempthorne, as Secretary of
Interior, and James S. Cason, as Associate Deputy Secretary of
Interior, in their official capacities, respectively. Plaintiffs
filed an Amended Complaint on July 21, 2008. In the suit,
Plaintiff seeks review of Interior’s May 23, 2008 decision to
take land in trust for the Oneida Nation. Six other cases have
been filed in the Northern District of New York, claiming that
Interior’s decision was arbitrary and capricious in contravention
of the APA. See Cent. N.Y. Fair Bus. Ass’n v. Kempthorne, No.
08-660 (N.D.N.Y. filed June 21, 2008); Niagra Mohawk Power Corp.
v. Kempthorne, No. 08-649 (N.D.N.Y. filed June 20, 2008); City of
Oneida v. Kempthorne, No. 08-648 (N.D.N.Y. filed June 19, 2008);
Town of Verona v. Kempthorne, No. 08-647 (N.D.N.Y. filed June 19,
2008); New York v. Kempthorne, No. 08-644 (N.D.N.Y. filed June
19, 2008); Upstate Citizens for Equality, Inc. v. United States,
No. 08-633 (N.D.N.Y. filed June 16, 2008).
The Stockbridge-Munsee seek relief under the APA, 5 U.S.C.
§§ 702, 706; the Indian Non-Intercourse Act, 25 U.S.C. § 177;
federal common law; the 1788 Treaty of Fort Schuyler and the
February 25, 1789 New York implementing statute; and the 1798
Treaty of Canandaigua, 7 Stat. 44. The instant suit alleges that
4
Defendants, inter alia, failed to consider whether the land
acquisition would extinguish Stockbridge-Munsee property or
treaty rights. Defendants filed this motion on August 28, 2008.
II. DISCUSSION
The Defendants have moved this Court to transfer this case
to the United States District Court for the Northern District of
New York under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). The statute provides as
follows:
For the convenience of parties and witnesses, in the
interest of justice, a district court may transfer any
civil action to any other district or division where it
might have been brought.
The threshold question for this Court is whether this case could
have been brought in the Northern District of New York. See
Shawnee Tribe v. United States, 298 F. Supp. 2d 21, 23 (D.D.C.
2002). “A civil action wherein jurisdiction is not founded
solely on diversity of citizenship may . . . be brought . . . in
a judicial district in which . . . a substantial part of property
that is the subject of the action is situated.” 28 U.S.C. §
1391(b)(2). As the land at issue is situated in the Northern
District of New York, the Stockbridge-Munsee concedes that the
case could have been brought there.
This Court has the discretion to grant the motion to
transfer. See Shawnee Tribe, 298 F. Supp. 2d at 23. “The Court
must balance a number of ‘case-specific’ factors when determining
5
whether or not transfer of the case is appropriate.” Id.
(quoting Stewart v. Ricoh Corp., 487 U.S. 22, 29 (1988)).
Defendants acknowledge that they carry the burden of showing that
the balances of factors warrant transfer. See Citizen Advocates
for Responsible Expansion v. Dole, 561 F. Supp. 1238, 1239
(D.D.C. 1983).
This Court has articulated a list of private and public
factors to be weighed when considering the transfer of a case.
In Shawnee Tribe, this Court said:
The private interest considerations include: (1) the
plaintiff’s choice of forum, unless the balance of
convenience is strongly in favor of the defendants; (2)
the defendant’s choice of forum; (3) whether the claim
arose elsewhere; (4) the convenience of the parties;
(5) the convenience of the witnesses of the plaintiff
and defendant, but only to the extent that the
witnesses may actually be unavailable for trial in one
of the fora; (6) the ease of access to sources of
proof.
The public interest considerations include: (1) the
transferee’s familiarity with the governing laws; (2)
the relative congestion of the calendars of the
potential transferee and transferor courts; (3) the
local interest in deciding local controversies at home.
298 F. Supp. 2d at 24 (citing Trust Unlimited v. U.S. Dep’t of
Agric., 944 F. Suppp. 13, 17 (D.D.C. 1996)).
A. Private-Interests Considerations
The “plaintiff’s choice of forum is afforded great
deference, and is a ‘paramount consideration’ in any
determination of a motion to transfer. However, that choice is
conferred less deference by the court when a plaintiff’s choice
6
of forum is not the plaintiff’s home forum.” Id. (internal
citations omitted); see also Citizen Advocates, 561 F. Supp. at
1239. The Stockbridge-Munsee’s home forum is Wisconsin.
Defendants’ choice of forum, given other pending actions dealing
with the same land dispute and the same administrative decision,
is the Northern District of New York. Like in Shawnee Tribe,
Plaintiff argues that events giving rise to this suit occurred in
Washington and that the case should be heard here. 298 F. Supp.
2d at 25. “[M]ere involvement,” however, “on the part of federal
agencies, or some federal officials who are located in
Washington, D.C. is not determinative.” Id. at 26. Though the
administrative action at issue in this case arose in Washington,
“the only real connection [the] lawsuit has to the District of
Columbia is that a federal agency headquarted here . . . is
charged with generally regulating and overseeing the
[administrative] process.” DeLoach v. Philip Morris Co., Inc.,
132 F. Supp. 2d 22, 25 (D.D.C. 2000). As the D.C. Circuit noted
in Cameron v. Thornburgh, 983 F.2d 253 (D.C. Cir. 1993):
Courts in this circuit must examine challenges to
personal jurisdiction and venue carefully to guard
against the danger that a plaintiff might manufacture
venue in the District of Columbia. By naming high
government officials as defendants, a plaintiff could
bring a suit here that properly should be pursued
elsewhere.
Id. at 256.
7
Defendants note that they are facing six challenges to
Interior’s land-into-trust decision in the Northern District of
New York, and that it would be more convenient for them to defend
the same decision in one forum. Plaintiff argues that because
Interior has assigned this challenge to a different section
within the Department than the one that is handling the other
cases, this should lessen any inconvenience to Defendants.
Defendants counter, however, that Interior’s positions amongst
the different sections will be coordinated. Plaintiff and
Defendants agree that this case is to be decided based on the
administrative record; therefore, convenience to witnesses is a
non-factor. Given that APA challenges are limited to the
administrative record compiled by the agency, see Fla. Power &
Light Co. v. Lorian, 470 U.S. 729, 744 (1985), neither does “the
ease of access to sources of proof” constrain the Court from
transferring the case, Shawnee Tribe, 298 F. Supp. 2d at 24. The
administrative record here is the same as the one in all six
cases pending in the Northern District of New York.
The Court concludes that the private-interest considerations
favor transfer. Having evaluated the private interests, the
Court must still consider the public-interest considerations.
B. Public-Interest Considerations
Defendants note that the Northern District of New York and
the Second Circuit have considerable experience with land
8
disputes in New York. All six actions that were filed as a
result of Interior’s decision in May 2008 have been assigned to
the same judge; the Stockbridge-Munsee action filed in 1986 has
also been assigned to the very same judge. Furthermore, the
Stockbridge-Munsee filed an action in the Northern District of
New York for a preliminary injunction challenging the land-into-
trust decision. See Stockbrige-Munsee Cmty. v. New York, No. 08-
1140 (N.D.N.Y filed June 24, 2008). Although the preliminary
injunction challenge was subsequently withdrawn, Plaintiff does
not dispute that the Northern District of New York has particular
expertise in adjudicating land disputes involving Indian tribes
and the U.S. Government. Neither side has made any contention
that the transferring of this case to the Northern District of
New York will congest that court’s calendar, and therefore this
Court does not consider that factor in its analysis.
Transferring this case to the Northern District of New York
will also avoid inconsistent results and waste of judicial
resources. See Ledyard v. United States, 1995 WL 908244, at *2
(D.D.C. 1995) (“The action here and that in [New York] seek
review of the same administrative decision and present similar
claims and demands for relief. If this case were transferred to
[New York], the cases could be consolidated, thus saving expense
to the public and avoiding the duplicative use of judicial
resources.”) (citation and footnote omitted). The fact is, this
9
case, and the six other cases cited above, all challenge the same
administrative decision. See Cont’l Grain Co. v. FBL-585, 364
U.S. 20, 26 (1960) (“a situation in which two cases involving
precisely the same issues are simultaneously pending in different
District Courts leads to the wastefulness of time, energy and
money that § 1404(a) was designed to prevent”). The issues here
clearly overlap with the cases before the Northern District of
New York, even if the cases technically are seeking different
relief. See Martin-Trigona v. Meister, 668 F. Supp. 1, 3 (D.D.C.
1987) (“The interests of justice are better served when a case is
transferred to the district where related actions are pending.”).
The public-interest considerations, likewise, weigh in favor of
transfer.
III. CONCLUSION
In balancing the factors in this case, it is in the
interest of justice that this case should be transferred to the
Northern District of New York. Defendants’ Motion to Transfer
Venue and to Suspend Obligation to Answer in the District Court
is GRANTED. An appropriate Order accompanies this Memorandum
Opinion.
SO ORDERED.
Signed: Emmet G. Sullivan
United States District Judge
January 5, 2009
10