 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Wacondo v. Concha3/11/1994
BLACK, Judge.
Defendant Concha is a member of the Taos Pueblo. Plaintiff Salas is a member of the Zia Pueblo who resides in Rio Rancho. Plaintiff Wacondo is a member and resident of the Jemez Pueblo. Plaintiffs' claims arise out of a shooting committed within the exterior boundaries of the Jemez Pueblo. As a result of the shooting, Defendant was convicted in federal court of voluntary manslaughter and assault.
Plaintiffs filed a complaint for personal injuries seeking compensatory and punitive damages for the wrongful death and injuries they suffered as a result of Defendant's actions. Defendant moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of jurisdiction, claiming that the matter fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Jemez Pueblo. The Sandoval County District Court granted the motion and dismissed the case, since "all of the parties are Indians and the causes of action arose on Indian lands."
Plaintiffs appeal, arguing that they have the right to seek redress against another Indian, not a member of the Jemez Pueblo, in state court. The issue is whether Indian sovereignty or federal policy would require the state courts to recognize exclusive jurisdiction in the Jemez courts because all of the parties are Indian, even though not members of the Jemez Pueblo. Under these facts, we agree with Plaintiffs and reverse.
I. STATE JURISDICTION
As a general rule, Indians may sue non-Indians in state court. Three Affiliated Tribes of the Fort Berthold Reservation v. Wold Eng'g P.C., 467 U.S. 138, 148-49, 81 L. Ed. 2d 113, 104 S. Ct. 2267 (1984). This general rule holds true even though some or all of the transaction at issue occurred on an Indian reservation. ); see also Margery H. Brown & Brenda C. Desmond, Montana Tribal Courts: Influencing the Development of Contemporary Indian Law, 52 Mont. L. Rev. 211, 265 (1991) ("In contrast to the rule applicable to lawsuits brought by non-Indians against Indians in reservation-based claims, the rules applicable to reservation-based claims brought by Indians permit the filing of those claims in either state or tribal court.") (footnote omitted). The New Mexico Supreme Court has specifically held that an Indian may invoke the jurisdiction of a state court to protect his rights to recover for personal injuries arising from an accident on Indian land. .
On the other hand, disputes which involve only tribal members or internal tribal policy must generally be maintained in tribal forums. See Fisher v. District Court, 424 U.S. 382, 389, 47 L. Ed. 2d 106, 96 S. Ct. 943 (1976). In sum: "In matters not affecting either the Federal Government or the tribal relations, an Indian has the same status to sue and be sued in state courts as any other citizen." Felix Cohen, Handbook of Federal Indian Law ch. 19, § 5, at 379 (1942 ed.);
II. FEDERAL POLICY
Defendant relies upon Public Law No. 83-280, 67 Stat. 588 (1953) (codified in part at 28 U.S.C. § 1360) ("Public Law 280"), to argue that New Mexico lacks jurisdiction over any dispute involving Indians on reservation land. Public Law 280 delegated to certain designated states jurisdiction over reservation activities of both members and nonmembers and provides that state criminal and civil prohibitory laws "that are of general application" shall also be in effect on Indian reservations. Other states were given the option to accept such jurisdiction. New Mexico, one of the states given the option to accept such jurisdiction, has not done so. On its face, then, Public Law 280 would seem relevant only if the New Mexico courts were seeking to supplan
Page 1 2 3 4 New Mexico Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|