KayLewis,Petitioner, v. WhiteMountainApacheTribe,Respondent.

No.CV128073PCTSRB(DKD). UnitedStatesDistrictCourt,D.Arizona. January24,2013.

REPORTANDRECOMMENDATION
DAVIDK.DUNCAN,MagistrateJudge. TOTHEHONORABLESUSANR.BOLTON,U.S.DISTRICTJUDGE: PetitionerKayLewisfiledaPetitionforWritofHabeasCorpuspursuantto28U.S.C.2241andthe IndianCivilRightsAct,25U.S.C.1303,challengingtheWhiteMountainApacheTribe's("Tribe") denialofhisbidtorunfortheofficeofTribalCouncilMember.LewiscontendsthatRespondents[1], membersoftheWhiteMountainApacheTribalCouncil,haveconspiredwithotherstoviolatehis constitutionalrightsbydeprivinghimofhislibertytorunforoffice.Hearguesthatthelossofliberty amountstoacriminal"detention"becauseitinvolvesthestrippingoflibertyrightsbygovernmental actionwithoutdueprocessoflawunder25U.S.C.1302(a)(8).TheWhiteMountainApacheTribe movedtodismissthepetitionwithprejudicepursuanttoFED.R.CIV.P.12(b)(1)and(6)(Doc.6). Petitionersubsequentlyamendedhispetition,replacingtheTribeasthenamedrespondentwiththe namesofmembersfromtheTribalCouncil.LegalcounselfortheTribeonbehalfofthe Respondentsthereaftermovedtodismisstheamendedpetition.[2]Forthereasonsdiscussed below,theCourtrecommendsthattheMotiontoDismissthePetitionbedeniedasmoot,thatthe MotiontoDismisstheAmendedPetitionbegranted,andthattheAmendedPetitionbedismissed withprejudice.

BACKGROUND
PetitionerisamemberoftheWhiteMountainApacheTribelocatedontheFortApacheReservation innortheasternArizona(Doc.11,ExhD).RespondentsarealsomembersoftheTribeandserve ontheTribalCouncil,theTribe'sgoverningbody(Id.,ExhH).Petitionersoughttobecomea certifiedcandidatefortheofficeofTribalCouncilMemberintheTribe'sApril2012generalelection (Id.,ExhC).ThiscontroversystemsfromadisputeovertheTribalElectionCommission'sfindings thatPetitionerdidnotmeetthequalificationstobecomeacertifiedcandidateontheApril2012 ballot(Doc.8).PetitionerallegesthatRespondentshaveconspiredtokeephisnameoffofthe ballot,resultinginaviolationofhisconstitutionalrightsbydeprivinghimofhislibertytorunforoffice (Id.).Petitionercontendsthatthelossoflibertytorunforofficeamountstoacriminal"detention"[3] forpurposesofreviewundertheIndianCivilRightsAct("ICRA")(Id.).

TheWhiteMountainApacheTribeisorganizedunderaconstitutionapprovedbytheSecretaryof theInteriorin1993pursuantto25U.S.C.476,theIndianReorganizationActof1934(Doc.11, ExhH).UndertheTribe'sConstitution,theTribalCouncilisgrantedthe"powertoprescribe ordinancesgoverningtheconductofreferendumsandelections"(Id.atp.7).Accordingtothe Tribe'sConstitution,"[s]uchordinancesshallprescribethedutiesoftheelectionboard,procedures forcastingandcanvassingresidentandnonresidentballots,methodforchallengingrighttovote, conductandresultsofelections,andsettlementofanyelectiondisputes"(Id.). TheTribalCouncilenactedtheWhiteMountainApacheTribeElectionCode("ElectionCode")in 1997(Id.,ExhB).UndertheElectionCode,theTribalElectionCommission("Commission")was established(Id.,ExhB).Amongotherthings,theCommissionwasgiventheauthoritytopromulgate electionrulesandregulations,reviewthequalificationsofcandidatesthroughanapplication process,andtodisqualifycandidatesnotmeetingthequalificationsestablishedbytheTribe's Constitution(Id.).Thus,theCommissionhasthedutytoverifythatcandidatesmeetthe qualificationsforoffice(Id.). Aspartoftheelectionprocess,applicantsmustsubmittotheCommissionanaffidavit demonstratingthattheypossessthequalificationsfortheofficesought(Id.,ExhB).Amongthe variousqualificationsforapositionontheTribalCouncil,acandidatemustdemonstratethatheor sheresides,ownscattle,orhasfarmlandassignedwithinthedistrictthatheorsheistorepresent (Id.,Exh.H).[4] Afterverifyingthequalificationsfromtheaffidavit,theCommissionthenissuesnominationpetitions totheapplicant(Id.,ExhB).Thepetitionsmustbesignedbyatleastfivepercentoftheresident eligiblevotersofthedistrictinwhichtheapplicantseekstobeacandidate(Id.).TheElectionCode statesthat"[a]llpersonsfoundbytheCommissiontomeettherequirements...shallbecertifiedby theTribalCouncilasacandidatefortheofficeindicatedinsuchpetition"(Id.,ExhB). SeekingtobecomeacertifiedcandidatefortheofficeofTribalCouncilMemberintheApril2012 generalelection,PetitionersubmittedhisapplicationtotheCommissiononDecember7,2011(Id., ExhD).IncludedinhisapplicationwerenumerousdocumentsandtherequiredAffidavitof QualificationsforTribalCouncil(Id.).RespondentsclaimthattheCommissionadministratively foundthatPetitionerfailedtocomplywiththeElectionCoderequirementthatanapplicantprovide corroboratingdocumentationtoverifythatheorshemeetsthequalificationcriteria(Doc.10at6). Specifically,RespondentscontendthatPetitionerfailedtoprovidedocumentationthathe"operates cattle"withintheDistrict(Id.).TheCommission'sfindingswereacceptedbytheTribalCounciland Petitionerwasnotcertifiedasacandidate(Id.,Exh3).Consequently,aresolutionpassedbythe TribalCouncilonDecember28,2011listedthoseindividualswhowerefoundtomeetthecriteria setforthintheElectionCodeandTribalConstitution(Id.).Petitionerwasnotamongthelisted individuals(Id.).RespondentscontendthataftertheCommissionreportsitsfactfindingregarding candidateapplications,theTribalCouncilhastheexclusiveconstitutionalauthorityanddutyto certifythosecandidateswhoqualifyfortheposition(Doc.10at8). PetitionersoughtandobtainedahearingintheTribalCourt,challengingtheCommission'sfindings andtheTribalCouncil'srefusaltocertifyhimasacandidate(Doc.8at3,12).Petitionermaintains thathemeetsallofthequalificationsforregisteringasacandidateforTribalCouncilMemberand allegesthathisnamewasleftoffoftheballotasaresultofpoliticalcorruption(Doc.8at23).On

January13,2012,JudgeArmstrongissuedanorderdirectingtheCommissiontoaddPetitioner's nametotheballot(Doc.13,ExhA).TheTribalCourtfoundthatPetitionerhad"metall requirementsoftheWhiteMountainApacheTribeConstitutionandBylawsandshallnofurtherbe deniedopportunityasacandidateforelectiveoffice"(Id.).TheCommissionobjectedtotheTribal Court'srulingbutneverthelesssubmittedthePetitioner'snametotheTribalCouncilforcertification (Doc.10at7).DespitetheTribalCourt'sOrder,theTribalCouncildidnotcertifyPetitionerasa candidatefortheelection(Id.).RespondentscontendthattheTribalCouncilhastheexclusive constitutionalauthoritytocertifycandidatesandtheTribalCourt'sOrderexceededitslimited jurisdictionoverelectionmatters(Doc.10at8). OnJanuary18,2012,TribalAttorneyRichardPalmersubmittedalettertoJudgeArmstrong notifyinghimofPalmer'sintentiontorecommendtotheTribalCouncilthatJudgeArmstrongbe removedfromhispositionasTribalCourtJudge(Doc.11,ExhC).Amongotherthings,Palmer allegedthatJudgeArmstronghadwillfullydisregardedtheTribalJudicialCodeandignoredand usurped"thewilloftheTribalCouncilandunderminedtheElectionCommission,therebycreatinga situationinwhichtheintegrityofthe2012Electionisnowinquestion"(Id.). OnJanuary26,2012,JudgeArmstrongissuedanordertotheCommissiontoceaseanddesistthe primaryelectionscheduledforFebruary1,2012,becauseithad"failedtorecognizeadecisionby [theTribal]Court"toincludePetitionerasacandidatefortheelection(Doc.13,ExhA).Healso scheduledahearingwithmembersoftheCommissiontoholdthemincontemptofcourtforfailure toadheretotheTribalCourt'sorderonJanuary13,2012(Id.).Notwithstandingtheceaseand desistorder,theTribalCouncilproceededwiththeprimaryelectiononFebruary1,2012(Doc.10 at9).Petitioner'snamedidnotappearontheballot(Id.).ThegeneralelectionwasheldonApril4, 2012(Id.).TheTribalCouncilacceptedtheelectionoutcomeandthewinningcandidateswere swornintoofficeonMay2,2012(Id.).OnMay4,2012,theTribalCouncilpassedaresolution suspendingJudgeArmstrongfromhispositionasajudgeontheTribalCourt(Doc.11,ExhA). TherecordrevealsthatappealswithintheTribalCourtareongoing(Doc.10at11).TheTribal Court'sordertotheCommissiontosubmitPetitioner'snametotheTribalCouncilforcertification hasbeenappealedbytheCommission(Id.).Intheappeal,theCommissioncontendsthatthe TribalCourt'sassertionofjurisdictionovertheelectionprocesswasaviolationofTribalLaw.The appealalsochallengestheTribalCourt'sdeterminationthat,contrarytotheCommission'sfact finding,Petitionerhadprovidedsufficientcorroboratingdocumentationtoverifyhisqualificationsas acandidate.Furthermore,theTribalCouncilisintheprocessofappointingmemberstothe appellatepanel(Doc.9at4).DespitetheremovalofJudgeArmstrongfromtheTribalCourt, PetitionerstillmaintainshisrightofappealtoahigherTribalCourtonceanappellatepanelis appointed. OnApril16,2012,Petitionerfiledapetitionforwritofhabeascorpusunder1303oftheICRA (Doc.1).TheTribemovedtodismissthepetitionpursuanttoFED.R.CIV.P.12(b)(1)and(6)(Doc. 6).Petitionersubsequentlyamendedhispetition,replacingtheTribeasthenamedrespondentwith thenamesofmembersfromtheTribe'sTribalCouncil(Doc.8).Respondentsthereaftermovedto dismisstheamendedpetition(Doc.10).Petitionercontendsthathehasexhaustedalltribal remediesandthatmembersoftheTribalCouncilhaveviolatedhisconstitutionalrightsbydepriving himofhislibertytorunforoffice.Hearguesthatthelossoflibertyamountstoacriminal"detention" becauseitinvolvesthestrippingoflibertyrightsbygovernmentalactionwithoutdueprocessoflaw

under25U.S.C.1302(a)(8)(Doc.8,17,18).Henowasksthiscourttoissueanordernullifying theexistingelectionresultsand,byinjunction,mandateafreeelectionprocessfortheTribe.The questiontheCourtmustdecideiswhetherafederaldistrictcourthassubjectmatterjurisdictionto examinethemeritsofPetitioner'sclaiminafederalhabeasproceeding.TheCourtconcludesthatit doesnot.[5]

DISCUSSION
Thepartyinvokingfederalcourtjurisdictionbearstheburdenofestablishingitsexistence.SteelCo. v.CitizensforaBetterEnvironment,523U.S.83,10304(1998).Federalcourtshavelong recognizedthatIndiantribesaredistinctpoliticalentitiesretaininginherentpowerstomanage internaltribalmatters.SeeSantaClaraPueblov.Martinez,436U.S.49,55(1978)(citations omitted).WiththepassageoftheICRA,however,Congresssoughttoapplybasicconstitutional normstotribalgovernments.Id.at5758.TheICRAstatesthatIndiantribesexercisingpowersof selfgovernmentshallnot"denytoanypersonwithinitsjurisdictionequalprotectionofitslawsor depriveanypersonoflibertyorpropertywithoutdueprocessoflaw."25U.S.C.1302(a)(8). Section1303oftheICRAprovidestheonlyfederalcourtprocedurefortheenforcementofthe substantiveguaranteesin1302.SantaClaraPueblo,436U.S.at58.Itstatesthat"[t]heprivilege ofthewritofhabeascorpusshallbeavailabletoanyperson,inacourtoftheUnitedStates,totest thelegalityofhisdetentionbyorderofanIndiantribe."25U.S.C.1303.(emphasisadded). Afederalcourthasnojurisdictiontohearapetitioner'sclaimforhabeascorpusunder1303 unlessthepetitioneris(1)incustodyand(2)hasexhaustedalltribalremedies.[6]Jeffredov. Macarro,599F.3d913,918(9thCir.2010).Oneseekingtoinvokefederaljurisdictionunder1303 mustdemonstrate"`asevereactualorpotentialrestraintonliberty.'"Id.at919(quotingPoodryv. TonawandaBandofSenecaIndians,85F.3d874,880(2ndCir.1996)).TheNinthCircuithasheld thatsuchrestraintor"detention"asprovidedintheICRAmustbeinterpretedsimilarlytothe"in custody"requirementinotherhabeascontexts.Id.at918.SeealsoMoorev.Nelson,270F.3d789, 791(9thCir.2001)("Thereisnoreasontoconcludethattherequirementof`detention'setforthin theIndianCivilRightsAct1303isanymorelenientthantherequirementof`custody'setforthin theotherhabeasstatutes."(citationomitted)).Therefore,federaljurisdictionforanICRAhabeas petitionisonlyproperwhenthepetitionerisincustody.Jeffredo,599F.3dat918(citingMoore,270 F.3dat791).SeealsoShenandoahv.U.S.Dept.ofInterior,159F.3d708,714(2ndCir.1998) ("Habeasreliefdoesaddressmorethanactualphysicalcustody,andincludesparole,probation, releaseonone'sownrecognizancependingsentencingortrial,andpermanentbanishment." PetitionerreliesprimarilyonPoodryv.TonawandaBandofSenecaIndians,85F.3d874(2ndCir. 1996),toadvancehisargumentthat"incarceration"isnotnecessarilytheonlyrestraintofliberty thatjustifiesfederalhabeascorpusrelief(Doc.11at3).InPoodry,membersoftheTonawanda BandofSenecaIndianspetitionedforwritsofhabeascorpusundertheICRAaftertheywere convictedoftreasonandsentencedtopermanentbanishmentfromtheTonawandaReservation. Id.at876.TheWesternDistrictofNewYorkdismissedthecaseforlackofsubjectmatter jurisdiction,concludingthatthethreatofpermanentbanishmentwasnotasufficientrestrainton libertytotriggerapplicationoftheICRA'shabeascorpusprovision.Id.TheSecondCircuitCourtof Appealsvacatedtheordersofdismissalandremandedthecase.Id.Thecourtofappealsheldthat actualphysicalcustodywasnotajurisdictionalprerequisiteforfederalhabeasreviewunderthe

ICRA.Id.at893(citingJonesv.Cunningham,371U.S.236,243(1963)).Thecourtofappeals concludedthatbanishmentwasasevereandsufficientrestraintonlibertysoastopermitadistrict courttoreviewanapplicationforwritofhabeascorpus.Id.at895.Italsonotedthatthedistrict courthadignoredseveralimportant,uncontestedfactualallegations.Id.Specifically,petitioners weresubjecttointimidation,assault,andthreats.Id.Therewerealsoattemptstoforciblyremove petitionersfromthereservationanddenythemelectricalservice.Id.Thecourtofappeals concludedbynotingthat"theexistenceoftheordersofpermanentbanishmentaloneevenabsent attemptstoenforcethemwouldbesufficienttosatisfythejurisdictionalrequirementsforhabeas corpus."Id. TheNinthCircuitCourtofAppealsthoroughlyexaminedthemeaningof"detention"inJeffredov. Macarro,599F.3d913(9thCir.2009).InJeffredo,formertribememberspetitionedforwritsof habeascorpusundertheICRAaftertheyweredisenrolledfromthePechangaBandoftheLuiseo MissionIndians.Id.at914.Petitionersmadethreearguments,claimingthatactualrestraints, potentialrestraints,andthelossoftheirPechangaidentityamountedtoanunlawfuldetentionunder 1303.Id.at918. First,theJeffredopetitionersclaimedthatasaresultoftheirdisenrollmentinthetribe,theyhad experiencedactualrestraintsbecausetheyweredeniedaccesstocertainfacilitiesandserviceson thereservation.Id.at91819.AsinPoodry,thecourtofappealsinJeffredoreliedonJonesv. Cunninghaminstatingthatconditionsandrestrictionsmustsignificantlyrestrainone'slibertyin ordertoinvoke1303jurisdiction.Id.at919(citingJones,371U.S.at243).However,thecourtof appealsheldthatthedenialofaccesstofacilitiesdidnotamounttothesevererestraintsonliberty asseeninPoodry.Id.at919.UnlikePoodry,theJeffredopetitionershadnotbeen"convictedof treason,sentencedtopermanentbanishment,[or]permanentlylostanyandallrightsaffordedto tribalmembers."Id.(citingPoodry,85F.3dat876,878).Petitionersalsoclaimedthat,asnon members,theyweresubjecttopotentialrestraintsbecausetheywereunderconstantthreatof banishment.Id.at919.Thecourtofappealsnotedthatnoothercourthasheldthatthethreatof confinementissufficienttosatisfythedetentionrequirementof1303.Id.SeealsoEdmundsv. WonBaeChang,509F.2d39,4041(9thCir.1975)(denyinghabeasreliefunder28U.S.C. 2241,2254whereacourtimposedfinecouldbeenforcedbyjailtime).Thus,thecourtofappeals foundthatdenialofaccesstotribalfacilitiesaswellasthethreatoffutureevictionwerenot sufficientrestraintstosatisfythedetentionrequirementof1303.Id.at919,920. Finally,theJeffredopetitionersclaimedthestrippingoftheirPechangacitizenshipasaresultof disenrollmentwassuchasignificantrestraintontheirlibertythatitconstitutedadetention.Id.at 920.Whilethecourtwassympathetictotheargument,itfound"noprecedentfortheproposition thatdisenrollmentalonewassufficienttobeconsidereddetentionunder1301."Id.Thecourt notedthat"[w]hile`Congress'authorityoverIndianmattersisextraordinarilybroad...theroleof courtsinadjustingrelationsbetweenandamongtribesandtheirmembers[is]correspondingly restrained."Id.(quotingSantaClaraPueblo,436U.S.at71).Further,thecourtstatedthatatribe's righttodefinetherequirementsofmembershipwas"centraltoitsexistenceasanindependent politicalcommunity."Id.(internalquotationsomitted).Thecourtofappealsconcludedbystating that"inthecompleteabsenceofprecedent,wecannotinvolvethecourtsinthesedisputes."Id. WhilePetitionerreliesonPoodry,thedecisioninJeffredoguidesthisCourt'sdecision.Like Jeffredo,PetitionerheremakesanovelargumentbyaskingthisCourttoexpandthemeaningof

"detention"beyondexistingprecedent.TheCourtcannotdoso.Whiletherecordrevealsclear internalconflictbetweentheTribalCouncil,theCommission,andtheTribalCourt,therefusalto certifyPetitionerasacandidatefortheTribalCouncilelectionissimplynotequivalenttoadetention under1303.Asprecedentdemonstrates,awritofhabeascorpusisameasurereservedforonly themostsevererestraintsonindividuallibertyrestraintsthatamounttodetention.Hensleyv. Mun.Court,SanJoseMilpitasJudicialDist.,SantaClaraCounty,California,411U.S.345,351 (1973). Petitionerhasnothadasevererestraintonhisliberty.Hehasnotbeenbanishedfromthetribe, convictedofacrime,orsubjectedtoanyformofphysicalcustodyorarrest.Further,hehasnot beencompletelystrippedofhisrightsasamemberoftheTribe.Rather,Petitionermaintainsallthe rightsandprivilegesofmembershipwithintheWhiteMountainApacheTribe.WhilePetitionerwas precludedfromrunningfortheofficeofTribalCouncilMemberinoneelection,hehasnotbeen barredfromrunninginfutureelections.Nocourthasheldthatapetitioner'sinabilitytorunforoffice inoneelectionissuchaseverelimitationonlibertythatwouldrisetothelevelofadetention. Therefore,theCourtdoesnothavesubjectmatterjurisdictiontoexaminePetitioner'shabeasclaim. JeffredoisalsohelpfulinexaminingPetitioner'sargumentthathehasbeenstrippedofhisrightto runforofficewithoutdueprocessoflaw.Atribe'srighttodefinethequalificationsforanofficewithin thetribalgovernmentissimilartoitsrighttodefineitsownmembershipitiscentraltoatribe's "existenceasanindependentpoliticalcommunity."SantaClaraPueblo,436U.S.at71(citingRoff v.Burney,168U.S.218(1897)).Likewise,theadministrativeproceduresputinplacetodetermine whetheranapplicantmeetsthequalificationsfortribalofficeareequallyimportanttoatribe's politicalindependenceandsovereignty.ThisCourtdoesnothavetheauthorityorjurisdictionto questiontheCommission'sfactualfindingsthatPetitionerdidnotqualifyfortheofficeofTribal CouncilMember.SeeSmithv.ConfederatedTribesofWarmSpringsReservationofOregon,783 F.2d1409,1412(9thCir.1986)("FederalCourtsmustavoidundueorintrusiveinterferencein reviewingTribalCourtprocedures.").AsnotedbytheNinthCircuitinJeffredo,"despitethenovelty ofthisapproachanddespitethepotentialinjusticeofthissituation,wenonethelesslacksubject matterjurisdictiontoconsiderthisclaimbecause[Petitioner]wasnotdetained."Jeffredo,599F.3d at915. ITISTHEREFORERECOMMENDEDthatRespondents'MotiontoDismissthePetitionforWritof HabeasCorpusbedeniedasmoot(Doc.6). ITISFURTHERRECOMMENDEDthatRespondents'MotiontoDismisstheAmendedPetitionfor WritofHabeasCorpusbegranted(Doc.10). ITISFURTHERRECOMMENDEDthatKayLewis'sAmendedPetitionforWritofHabeascorpusbe deniedanddismissedwithprejudice(Doc.8).
[1]GreggHenry,ClintonKessay,Jr.,KinoKane,TheresaLarzelere,ArnoldBeach,AlvinDeclay,Sr.,KinoTorino,ClineGriggs, Sr.,andJustinWilliams. [2]TheCourtisawarethatPetitionerfailedtoseektherequiredleavepriortofilinghisAmendedPetition.However,intheinterest ofjudicialeconomy,theCourtwillaccepttheAmendedPetitionandrecommenditsdismissal. [3]Theterms"detention"and"custody"areusedinterchangeablyinthisReportandRecommendation. [4]ArticleXII,Section1oftheTribe'sConstitutionstatesthefullrequirementsforapositionontheTribalCouncil:

AnymemberoftheTribewhohasreachedtheageoftwentyfiveyears,andwhocanspeakApache,andwhoisaresidentofthe districtwhichheorsheistorepresent,orwhooperatescattlewithinthesaiddistrictorwhohasfarmlandassignedtohimorher insaiddistrict,shallbequalifiedtobeacandidateforelectiontotheCouncil.Nopersonwhohasbeenconvictedofafelonyshall beeligibletoholdofficeintheCouncil.Nopersonwhowithinthepastyearprecedingtheelectionhasbeenconvictedofacrime involvingmoralintegrity,shallbeeligibletoholdofficeintheCouncil.Thefollowingcrimes,andnoothers,shallbeconsidered crimesinvolvingmoralintegrity:adultery,bribery,embezzlement,extortion,fraud,forgery,misbranding,perjury,theftorpublic intoxication. [5]IntheAmendedMotiontoDismiss,RespondentsagainarguethatPetitionerhasnamedthewrongparties.Inlightofthebasis fortheCourt'srecommendation,itneednotaddressthisissue. [6]BecauseoftheCourt'sconclusionregardingtherequirementofdetention,itneednotdiscusstheissueofexhaustion.

SavetreesreadcourtopinionsonlineonGoogleScholar.