Chemehuevi Indian Tribe v. McMahon, No. 17-56791 (9th Cir. 2019)
Annotate this Case
Members of the Tribe filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging violations of various federal statutory and constitutional rights, stemming from traffic citations issued to members of the Tribe from a sheriff's deputy inside the boundaries of the Chemehuevi Reservation. The district court subsequently granted summary judgment to defendants.
The panel held that the Chemehuevi Reservation includes Section 36, and that Section 36 is Indian country. Therefore, the County does not have jurisdiction to enforce California regulatory laws within it. Furthermore, the panel held that the individual members have a cause of action under section 1983 against defendants. However, the Tribe cannot assert its sovereign rights under the statute. Accordingly, the court affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded in part.
Court Description: Civil Rights/Indian Country. The panel affirmed in part and vacated in part the district court’s dismissal of a complaint and remanded in an action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 by the Chemehuevi Indian Tribe and four of its enrolled members alleging violations of various federal statutory and constitutional rights in connection with citations by San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Deputies of four Tribe members for violating California regulatory traffic laws. The panel first analyzed the history and establishment of the Chemehuevi Reservation and concluded that the area where the Tribe members were cited was within the boundaries of the Reservation and hence was “Indian country” under 18 U.S.C. § 1151(a). Accordingly, the panel held that San Bernardino County did not have jurisdiction to enforce California regulatory traffic laws within that area. * The Honorable Edward R. Korman, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of New York, sitting by designation. CHEMEHUEVI INDIAN TRIBE V. MCMAHON 3 The panel held that the individual plaintiffs, but not the Tribe, could challenge the citations under § 1983. The panel held that because § 1983 was designed to secure private rights against government encroachment, tribal members could use it to vindicate their individual rights, but not the tribe’s communal rights. The panel therefore vacated the district court’s judgment dismissing the complaint as to the individuals, but affirmed the judgment as to the Tribe.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.