In the United States Court of Federal Claims
No. 18-1174C
(Filed: January 29, 2019)
(NOT TO BE PUBLISHED)
*********************$$*$***$**$*# )
KENDALL LOCKLEAR, et al., )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. )
)
UNITED STATES, )
)
Defendant. )
)
****sa***********************$***$
Kendall Locklear, pro se, Maxton, North Carolina and Christopher Hardison, pro se,
Windsor, North Carolina.
Sara E. Costello, Trial Attorney, Environmental & Natural Resources Division, Natural
Resources Section, United States Departrnent of Justice, Washington, D.C., for defendant. With
her on the motion and brief Were Jean Williams, Deputy Assistant Attorney General,
Environmental & Natural Resources Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington,
D.C., and J ames W. Porter, Attorney Advisor, Office of the Solicitor, Department of the Interior,
Washington, D.C.
OPINION AND OR])ER
LETTOW, Senior Judge.
Plaintiffs Kendall Locklear and Christopher Hardison assert claims on behalf of
themselves, other unidentified individuals, and an entity called the “Six Nations of hidians.”
'l`hey allege land and property takings, identity theft, treaty Violations (including “bad men
clauses”), improper arrest and ticketing, and human and religious rights violations stemming
from the actions of various local, state, and federal officials Compl. at 2-3, 'f-9.l Pending
before the court is the government’s motion to dismiss pursuant to Rules lZ(b)(l) and lZ(b)(6)
of the Rules of the Court of F ederal Claims (“RCFC”) for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and
for failure to state a claim upon Which relief can be grantedl See United States’ Mot. to Dismiss
. . . (“Def.’s Mot.”), ECF No. 9. Because the court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction and the
lCitations to the complaint Will refer to the assigned ECF page numbers
rcra nnlm_£nal LBElE L?Lf=__ rata nasa omni mass ives
plaintiffs have failed to state a claim for which relief can be granted, the government’s motion to
dismiss the complaint is GRANTED.
BACKGROUND
l\/Ir. Locklear and Mr. Hardison identify themselves as “[t]reaty lndians” who are
members of the “Six Nations of Indians.” Compi. at 3, 7, 12~13. The plaintiffs concede that the
“Six Nations of Indians” is not a registered tribe with the Bureau of Indian Affairs. Compl. at 6.2
They claim instead that the “Six Nations of Indians” is a “separate sovereign [n]ation[]
possessing powers of authority to enact their own laws Without needing to get permission from
any other foreign governmental entity.” Compl. at 4 (ernphasis removed). The “Six Nations of
Indians” appears to be a reference to the “Six Nations” of tribes that composed the Iroquois
Confederacy after 1720. See Federal Power Comm ’n v. Tuscarora ladian Natton, 362 U.S. 99,
121 n. l 8 (1960) (The Six Nations consisted of the Oneidas, the Mohawks, the Onondagas, the
Cayugas, the Senecas, and the 'i`uscaroras.). Although plaintiffs make passing references to the
recognized tribes Which comprised the Six Nations, they do not claim to be actual members of
any of those tribes See Cornpl. at 5-6, 7-8, 8-9. Rather, they aver they are “Treaty Indians.”
Cornpi. at 5-6, 7-8, 3~9.
In their complaint, the two plaintiffs assert “attempt[s] to strip a [t]reaty lndian of their
[t]reaty frights],” which resulted in “a form of [r]ape[] and molestation, as well as [f]raud, and
possible attempted genocide, intimidation, coercion, theft by deception, identify theft, [t]reaty
[v]iolations, [r]eligious [r]ights violations, and other types of [h]uman [r]ights violations.”
Compl. at 3 (emphasis removed). These “attempts” arise from a variety of interactions between
the plaintiffs and local, state, and federal officials They include an unnamed plaintiff being
charged With possession of marijuana, the use of the name “Onondaga” by New York State
without permission, 15 “Onondaga [t]reaty lndians” being harassed and beaten by state highway
patrol officers, state game wardens giving Mr. Locklear “18 years” of tickets for illegal hunting,
the closing of a state court on Mernorial Day and the subsequent holding of Mr. Locklear in
contempt, and an issue With an unidentified individual at the United States border With Canada.
Compl. at 5-9.
The “treaty rights” claimed by the plaintiffs allegedly arise from the Treaty of 1794
between the United States and the Six Nations Iroquois Confederacy, 7 Stat. 44 (Nov. 11, 1794).
Also known as the Treaty of Canandaigua or the Pickering Treaty, the Treaty of 1794
“recognized the land rights of certain members of the lroquois Confederacy . . . and was one of
the first federal treaties executed between the United States and any Native Arnerican tribe under
the authority of the United States Constitution.” Banner v. United States, 238 F.3d 1348, 1350
(Fed. Cir. 2001). The Treaty of 1794 was in many ways a reaffirmation of an earlier treaty
signed under the Articles of Confederation, the Treaty of Fort Stanwix in 1784. Id. Both treaties
sought peace between the young American nation and the Iroquois Confederacy (rnany of whose
members fought alongside the British during the Revolutionary War), and to recognize certain
2See lndian Entities Recognized and Eligible to Receive Services from the United States
Bureau of indian Affairs, 83 Fed. Reg. 34863-68 (July 23, 2018).
2
lroquois land holdings See id.; see also Sl`x Nations v. United States, l73 Ct. Cl. 899, 902
(1965).
The plaintiffs request a wide variety of relief based on the alleged violation of the Treaty
of 1794. 'l`hey seek the return of 20,000 acres of land, Compl. at 8, “$20,000,000 [] to be
extracted from the Treaty Account-War Bonds at the State Department” for Mr. Locl