FILED
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
November 9, 2010
PUBLISH Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
TENTH CIRCUIT
BELVA ANN NAHNO-LOPEZ;
BERDENE NAHNO-LOPEZ; BETTY
JEAN CROCKER; LUCINDA
KERCHEE; ROBERTA C BURGESS- No. 09-6258
KERCHEE; GWENDOLYN KAY
KERCHEE; MELVIN KERCHEE, JR.,
Plaintiffs - Appellants,
and
REACHELE DARBY-GARCIA;
MARGARET PENCE,
Plaintiffs,
v.
JEFF HOUSER; LORI WARE;
MICHAEL DARROW; ROBIN ISOM;
LORETTA BUCKNOR; JANET
MANN; NORMAN D. NOTT,
Defendants - Appellees,
and
FORT SILL APACHE CASINO, a
private enterprise,
Defendant.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
(D.C. No. 5:08-CV-01147-F)
Gary Montana, Osseso, Wisconsin, for Appellants.
Richard Grellner of Law Office of Richard J. Grellner, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
(and Robert E. Prince of Carter & Prince, Lawton, Oklahoma, with him on the
brief), for Appellees.
Before KELLY, GORSUCH, Circuit Judges, and MELGREN *, District Judge.
KELLY, Circuit Judge.
Plaintiffs-Appellants filed this action claiming unlawful use of their real
property and seeking declaratory judgment, injunctive relief, ejectment, and
damages. They appeal from the district court’s grant of summary judgment in
favor of Defendants-Appellees, members of the Business Committee of the Fort
Sill Apache Tribe of Oklahoma and the Manager of the Fort Sill Casino. The
district court had subject-matter jurisdiction pursuant to 25 U.S.C. § 345 and
appellate jurisdiction arises under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We affirm.
*
The Honorable Eric F. Melgren, U.S. District Court Judge, District of
Kansas, sitting by designation.
-2-
Background
This case involves a dispute over real property allegedly leased by the Fort
Sill Apache Tribe of Oklahoma (the “Tribe”), acting through its Tribal Business
Committee (the “Business Committee”). Defendants are members of the Business
Committee and the Manager of the Fort Sill Apache Casino (the “Casino”), all
named in their individual capacities. Plaintiffs are members of the Comanche
Tribe and hold beneficial title to the real property at issue.
In June 1999, the Tribe’s General Council authorized the Business
Committee to acquire the property. See Aplt. App. 250. The Business Committee
negotiated a purchase agreement. However, litigation ensued and the purchase
was never consummated. Instead of purchasing the property, in October 2003
Plaintiffs and the Business Committee entered into a lease agreement, pursuant to
which the Tribe would make five yearly payments of $300 to each Plaintiff. See
Aplt. App. 180. It is undisputed that Plaintiffs received at least four yearly
payments under this lease. They never returned or attempted to return these
payments.
Plaintiffs maintain that the Secretary of the Interior never approved the
lease, as is required by 25 U.S.C. § 348. Nevertheless, in 2007 construction of a
parking facility began. After completion of the parking facility, an official from
the BIA issued a notice of trespass to the Tribe, indicating that the BIA
considered the lease null and void. The Tribe brought suit challenging the BIA’s
-3-
trespass determination, which the Tribe later dropped, allegedly in reliance on an
Assistant United States Attorney’s assurance that the BIA had impliedly approved
the lease. See Aplt. App. 183.
After these events, Plaintiffs filed this action which contained seven counts.
See Aplt. App. 12, 20-25. Only two counts survived a motion to dismiss: a claim
alleging violation of 25 U.S.C. § 345, which grants federal jurisdiction over
Indian claims of unlawful exclusion from congressionally allotted parcels, and a
common-law trespass claim. These counts remain only as to Defendants in their
individual capacities, and only for declaratory and monetary relief. See Aplt. App.
101-03.
Defendants moved for summary judgment on these claims. Their
memorandum in support contained fifty-seven facts, each of which was supported
by an affidavit or documentary evidence. See id. 111-23. Of particular
importance are the following:
-“The Tribe’s Business Committee has authority
delegated from the Tribe’s General Council to administer
business operations of the Tribe . . . , including operations of
the Fort Sill Apache Casino,” id. 112;
-“[T]he Tribe’s General Council authorized the Tribe’s
Business Committee to acquire the property” at issue in the
case, id. 117;
-“Plaintiffs gave express consent to the Tribe to make
use of the property, including consent to develop a portion of
the property for customer parking for the Fort Sill Apache
Casino,” id. 118;
-4-
-The Tribe made payments under the lease and loans
under the abandoned purchase agreement, which the Plaintiffs
never returned or tendered, see id. 118, 120; and
-Before the lease expired, Casino activities ceased and
the Plaintiffs’ land was restored to its original condition. See
id. 123.
In response, Plaintiffs set forth fifty undisputed facts, only four of which
contained a reference to the record. None referenced Defendants’ undisputed
facts. See Aplt. App. 143-49. Three of the facts with record references pertain to
claims by the “Pence Plaintiffs,” who dismissed their claims on appeal. The one
remaining “undisputed fact” ostensibly with some support is:
-“Whether or not the General Council of the Ft. Sill Apache
Tribe authorized a purchase of the Kerchee lands and not an illegal
lease.” Aplt. App. 148.
Though styled as “undisputed facts,” all other statements were merely reassertions
of original pleadings or conclusory, unsupported allegations. See id. 143-49.
The district court granted summary judgment, holding that Plaintiffs failed
to raise a genuine issue of material fact for trial. See id. 168. Despite Plaintiffs’
non-compliance with the local rule requiring citations to the supporting evidence,
the district court reviewed the documents purportedly incorporated by the
Plaintiffs and found no support for their assertions. See Aplt. App. 166. It also
held that Defendants were entitled to sovereign and qualified immunity. See id.
167-68.
-5-
On appeal, Plaintiffs argue that the district court erred in granting summary
judgment given disputed genuine issues of material fact and that Defendants are
not entitled to any immunity having acted outside of their authority. We hold that
the Plaintiffs failed to establish a genuine issue of material fact for trial and
affirm solely on that basis.
Discussion
A. Jurisdiction
The surviving claims of the Plaintiffs include a claim asserting violation of
25 U.S.C. § 345 and a common-law trespass claim. See Aplt. App. 101 (district
court’s order); id. 21, 24 (original complaint setting forth the two surviving
claims). Some clarification of these claims is needed to explain the basis for
subject-matter jurisdiction and properly state the issues.
Title 25 U.S.C. § 345 grants jurisdiction over “suits involving the interests
and rights of the Indian in his allotment or patent after he has acquired it.”
United States v. Mottaz, 476 U.S. 834, 845 (1986) (internal quotation marks and
citation omitted). However, § 345 does not create cause of action or a standard
for liability. See 25 U.S.C. § 345; cf. Touche Ross & Co v. Redington, 442 U.S.
560, 577 (1979) (“Section 27 [of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934] grants
jurisdiction to the federal courts . . . . It creates no cause of action of its own
force and effect; it imposes no liabilities.”). Thus, Plaintiffs’ first count—which
-6-
asserts “violation” of 25 U.S.C. § 345—does not in and of itself state a claim for
relief.
Plaintiffs’ second count asserts a common-law trespass claim. However,
Indian rights to a Congressional allotment are governed by federal—not
state—law. See Oneida Cnty. v. Oneida Indian Nation of New York State, 470
U.S. 226, 235-36 (1985) (holding that federal common law, not state law,
governed Indian tribes’ damage claims); United States v. Milner, 583 F.3d 1174,
1182 (9th Cir. 2009) (“Federal common law governs an action for trespass on
Indian lands.”(citations omitted)); Felix S. Cohen, Handbook of Federal Indian
Law § 16.03(3)(c) (5th ed. 2005) (“[S]tate courts have no jurisdiction over
allotment ownership disputes . . . .”(footnote omitted)). Thus, to the extent that
Plaintiffs ground their trespass claim in state common law, it cannot provide
relief.
Plaintiffs’ two claims, however, can be fairly construed to articulate a
viable claim over which we have jurisdiction. They contend that § 345 was
“violated” in the sense that Defendants’ presence on their property constituted
trespass and was thus “unlawful” within the meaning of § 345. See Aplt. Br. 8.
They combine this with a claim for common-law trespass. See Aplt. App. 24.
We construe the complaint as stating a federal common-law trespass claim, for
-7-
which § 345 provides jurisdiction. 1 Accord Milner, 583 F.3d at 1182 (noting that
actions for trespass on Indian lands are governed by federal common law (citing
United States v. Pend Oreille Pub. Util. Dist. No. 1, 28 F.3d 1544, 1549 n.8 (9th
Cir. 1994); Oneida Cnty., 470 U.S. 226 at 235-36)).
In other words, Plaintiffs’ two surviving counts form, in essence, one
claim: a federal common-law trespass claim for which § 345 provides federal
subject-matter jurisdiction. Oklahoma trespass law provides the rule of decision
for this federal claim. See California ex rel. State Lands Comm’n v. United
States, 457 U.S. 273, 283 (1982) (“Controversies governed by federal law do not
inevitably require resort to uniform federal rules. It may be determined as a
matter of choice of law that, although federal law should govern a given question,
state law should be borrowed and applied as the federal rule for deciding the
substantive legal issue at hand.”) (citations omitted); Milner, 583 F.3d at 1182
n.6 (adopting Washington trespass law to govern a federal common-law trespass
claim brought by Indians) (citations omitted); Felix S. Cohen, Handbook of
Federal Indian Law § 16.03(3)(c) (5th ed. 2005) (“Although state courts have no
jurisdiction over allotment ownership disputes, federal law adopts state law as the
rule of decision in many circumstances, either explicitly or implicitly.”).
1
The district court also had subject-matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1331, as a federal common-law suit provides federal question jurisdiction. See
Nat’l Farmers Union Ins. Co. v. Crow Tribe of Indians, 471 U.S. 845, 850 (1985).
-8-
B. Summary Judgment
Our review of a summary judgment decision is de novo and we employ the
same standard as the district court. See Oldenkamp v. United Am. Ins. Co., —
F.3d —, 2010 WL 3758715, *2 (10th Cir. 2010) (internal quotation marks and
citations omitted). We view the evidence and make inferences in the light most
favorable to the non-movant. Id.
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(c)(2), summary judgment is
appropriate “if the pleadings, the discovery and disclosure materials on file, and
any affidavits show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that
the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(2).
The movant bears the initial burden of proving that no genuine issues of material
fact exist for trial. See Adickes v. S.H. Kress & Co., 398 U.S. 144, 157 (1970).
In response, the non-movant must “set out specific facts showing a genuine issue
for trial.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e)(2). The non-movant “may not rely merely on . . .
its own pleadings.” Id. Rather, it must come forward with facts supported by
competent evidence. See Adler v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 144 F.3d 664, 671 (10th
Cir. 1998). If the non-movant fails to carry this burden, summary judgment is
appropriate. Id.
An issue of fact is “genuine” “if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury
could return a verdict for the non-moving party” on the issue. Anderson v.
Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). An issue of fact is “material” “if
-9-
under the substantive law it is essential to the proper disposition of the claim” or
defense. Adler, 144 F.3d at 670 (citing Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248). In
determining whether a non-movant asserting a claim or defense has raised a
genuine issue of material fact, courts invariably take into account the substantive
burden of proof at trial. See Anderson, 477 U.S. at 252. Thus, in response to a
properly supported motion for summary judgment, a non-movant must produce
sufficient evidence for a reasonable trier of fact to find in its favor at trial on the
claim or defense under consideration.
Plaintiffs failed to carry this burden as to their claim. The local rules
provide that when confronted with a movant’s numbered statement of undisputed
facts supported by citations to record evidence, a non-movant must provide a
concise statement of material facts as to which the party asserts genuine issues
exist. W.D. Okla. L.R. 56.1(b) & (c). Each fact in dispute must be numbered and
supported by citations to record evidence. Id. This counter-statement of facts
must also indicate (where applicable) the number of the movant’s fact that is
disputed. Id. Although Plaintiffs included a numbered statement of facts, they
did not reference Defendants’ facts. They did reference and include three
underlying lease documents pertinent to claims now dismissed on appeal. Aplt.
App. 147. Concerning whether the Defendants acted with authority, Plaintiffs
stated that the Tribe’s General Council delegated the authority to purchase—but
not to lease—the Plaintiffs’ property. See Aplt. App. 148. In support of this
-10-
factual contention, Plaintiffs cited to a Tribal Council Resolution that vests the
Business Committee with “such authority as may be reasonable and necessary for
the . . . acquisition” of Plaintiffs’ property. Aplt. App. 148, 249-250.
Putting aside whether this single supported fact raises a “genuine”
issue—after all, the “reasonable and necessary authority” to acquire property
seems to encompass the authority to lease, see Black’s Law Dictionary (8th ed.
2004) (defining “acquisition” as “the gaining of possession or control over
something”)—it certainly does not raise a “material” issue.
Under Oklahoma law, consent forms a complete defense to trespass. See
Antonio v. Gen. Outdoor Adver. Co., 414 P.2d 289, 291 (Okla. 1966) (“Trespass
is not committed if there is permission or consent to do [the] acts complained of,
which consent may be implied by the circumstances.” (internal quotation marks
and citation omitted)); Vertex Holdings, LLC v. Cranke, 217 P.3d 120, 123 (Okla.
Civ. App. 2008) (defining trespass as “the actual physical invasion of the property
of another without permission”(emphasis added) (citations omitted)). Plaintiffs
did not controvert Defendants’ properly supported contention that “Plaintiffs gave
express consent to the Tribe to make use of the property.” See Aplt. App. 118 (¶
33). Thus, Plaintiffs’ controverted fact is immaterial: even if the Business
Committee did not have the authority to enter into the lease, Plaintiffs’ consent to
Defendants’ presence precludes recovery for trespass. Because Plaintiffs failed to
properly raise a genuine issue of material fact for trial, the district court’s grant of
-11-
summary judgment was appropriate.
Plaintiffs argue that non-compliance with the local rules by not labeling
undisputed facts as disputed should not warrant summary judgment and that it
should have been apparent from their presentation that Defendants’ facts were
disputed, at least as to the authority of the Business Committee Members. Aplt.
Br. 30-33. In return, Defendants point out that Plaintiffs failed to heed a
fundamental requirement of federal summary judgment practice (identifying
specific evidence showing a genuine issue of material fact), leaving undisputed
the movant’s statement of material facts, which was supported by detailed
references to the record. Aplee. Br. 25. We agree with Defendants.
Local rules that are consistent with the national rules have the force of law.
Kinsley v. Lakeview Reg’l Med. Ctr. LLC, 570 F.3d 586, 589 (5th Cir. 2009);
Fed. R. Civ. P. 83(a)(1). Plaintiffs do not challenge the validity of the Western
District of Oklahoma’s local rule 56.1, nor do they claim that the rule was vague
or unclear. Contrary to Plaintiffs’ assertions, the rule is not a simple “labeling”
requirement. It is an important tool to identify and address the facts at issue on
summary judgment: a district court should not have to guess which of the
movant’s material facts are actually disputed by the non-movant. This is
particularly important in complicated litigation, as the district court correctly
noted. See Aplt. App. 165. In the end, however, Plaintiffs’ failure to produce the
evidence specifically required under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(e)(2)
-12-
warranted summary judgment.
Plaintiffs also argue that they properly raised legal defenses to summary
judgment. See Aplt. Br. 32. The Supreme Court has been quite clear of late that
conclusory statements of law cannot defeat a motion to dismiss. See Ashcroft v.
Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009); Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S.
544, 555 (2007). That admonition would seem to apply even more so in the
summary judgment context. Conclusory legal statements cannot preclude
summary judgment.
The district court also held that Defendants were entitled to sovereign
immunity and qualified immunity. See Aplt. App.166-68. In view of our
disposition, we do not reach those issues.
AFFIRMED.
-13-