Newtok Village v. Patrick, No. 21-35230 (9th Cir. 2021)
Annotate this CaseThe Ninth Circuit vacated the district court's orders denying defendants' motion to set aside a default judgment and awarding attorney fees to plaintiffs in an action concerning governance of Newtok Village, a federally recognized Alaskan Native tribe. The panel held that subject matter jurisdiction has not been shown where plaintiffs' claims as pleaded simply do not arise under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States. Nor is a substantial question of federal law present. The panel concluded that the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (ISDEAA), which confers jurisdiction on federal district courts to hear disputes regarding self-determination contracts, applies only to suits by Indian tribes or tribal organizations against the United States, and does not authorize an action by a tribe against tribal members. The panel explained that, as currently framed, this case does not arise under federal law and must therefore be dismissed without prejudice to permit amendment under a proper basis of federal jurisdiction. Furthermore, the district court did not have the power to award plaintiffs its attorney fees in the first instance.
Court Description: Indian Law. The panel vacated the district court’s orders denying defendants’ motion to set aside a default judgment and awarding attorney fees to plaintiffs in an action concerning governance of Newtok Village, a federally recognized Alaskan Native tribe. One faction of Newtok Village leaders, the “New Council,” sued another faction, the “Old Council,” seeking an injunction to prohibit the Old Council from representing themselves as the Tribe’s legitimate governing body. Following election meetings in 2012, the Department of Interior Bureau of Indian Affairs (“BIA”) chose to recognize the New Council as Newtok’s governing body, but limited this recognition to Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (“ISDEAA”) contract-related purposes addressing relocation and other tribal services underwritten by federal funds. The district court concluded that it had subject matter jurisdiction, entered a default judgment after the Old Council did not defend the lawsuit, and awarded the injunctive relief the New Council sought. The district court later denied the Old Council’s motion to set aside the default judgment and vacate the permanent injunction as void and lacking any federal jurisdictional basis. The district court awarded New Council its attorney fees for successfully defending the Old Council’s motion. NEWTOK VILLAGE V. PATRICK 3 The panel held that the district court erred in concluding that it had subject matter jurisdiction because New Council’s claims, as pleaded, did not arise under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States. The panel held that the ISDEAA, which confers jurisdiction on federal district courts to hear disputes regarding self-determination contracts, applies only to suits by Indian tribes or tribal organizations against the United States, and does not authorize an action by a tribe against tribal members. New Council’s complaint did not allege interference with, or challenge the validity of, any existing ISDEAA contracts. Rather, New Council’s claims sounded in common law tort and conversion and lacked a federal foundation. The panel held that, under the Grable test, no substantial question of federal law was present because no federal issue was necessarily raised, actually disputed, substantial, and capable of resolution in federal court without disrupting the federal-state balance approved by Congress. The panel concluded that New Council’s complaint did not specify facts showing that the construction and effect of the ISDEAA or any other federal law was an essential element of the claims for injunctive and mandamus relief. The panel held that this case concerned an intratribal dispute, nonjusticiable in federal court, because New Council’s claims were akin to conversion, fraud, and other common law claims between tribal members. The panel concluded that continuing to enforce the permanent injunction risked the federal court’s impermissible involvement in interpreting the Tribe’s constitution and laws. Moreover, the BIA was not a party to the action, further supporting the conclusion that there was no inherent and disputed federal question. 4 NEWTOK VILLAGE V. PATRICK The panel held that, because the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction, the default judgment, permanent injunction, and attorney fees award must be vacated. The panel remanded with instructions for the district court to enter an order of dismissal without prejudice to repleading the complaint if the plaintiffs could establish a federal foundation for their claims.
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.