Use this button to switch between dark and light mode.

Experience a New Era in Legal Research with Free Access to Lexis+

Shermoen v. United States

Shermoen v. United States

United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

April 15, 1992, Argued and Submitted, San Francisco, California ; December 24, 1992, Filed

No. 91-16045

Opinion

 [*1314]  OPINION

POOLE, Circuit Judge:

Seventy individual Native Americans and the Coast Indian Community of Yurok Indians of the Resighini Rancheria, appellants, seek review of the district court's dismissal of their suit seeking injunctive relief and a declaration that the Hoopa-Yurok Settlement Act violates their constitutional rights. They also appeal the denial of their motion to amend their complaint. We affirm.

 On October 31, 1988, Congress enacted the Hoopa-Yurok Settlement Act, Pub. L. No. 100-580, 102 Stat. 2924 (codified [**2]  at 25 U.S.C. §§ 1300i-1300i-11 (1988)) ("Act"), thereby partitioning a communal reservation on the Klamath and Trinity Rivers in Northern California for the purpose of "resolving long standing [sic] litigation between the United States, the Hoopa Valley Tribe and a large number of individual Indians." S. Rep. No. 564, 100th Cong., 2d Sess. 1 (September 30, 1988). This litigation's provenience is found in the irruption of white settlers into California following the discovery of gold in 1849, which occasioned attempts by the federal government to "secure the cession by the Indians of their lands," id. at 4, and to immure "the many small tribes or bands of Indians" within a few "small tracts of land." Id. at 2-4.

Towards this end, Congress authorized the President in 1853 "to make five military reservations from the public domain in the State of California or the Territories of  [*1315]  Utah and New Mexico bordering on said State, for Indian purposes . . . . Provided, That such reservations shall not contain more than twenty-five thousand acres." Act of March 3, 1853, ch. 104, 10 Stat. 226, 238. 1 Pursuant to this authorization, by Executive Order dated November 16, 1855, President [**3]  Franklin Pierce established the 25,000 acre Klamath River Reservation, "a strip of territory commencing at the Pacific Ocean and extending 1 mile in width on each side of the Klamath River." 1 Charles J. Kappler, Indian Affairs, Laws & Treaties 817 (2d ed. 1904). Most of the inhabitants of this area "were and have been Yurok Indians, also known as Klamaths." Short v. United States, 486 F.2d 561, 562 (Ct. Cl. 1973), cert. denied, 416 U.S. 961 (1974). The reservation was not entirely successful, however, as "the Hoopa and other inland tribes refused to move onto this reservation and armed conflict . . . continued." S. Rep. No. 564, at 4.

Thus Congress, in 1864, passed "An Act to provide for the Better Organization of Indian Affairs in California." Act of April 8, 1864, ch. 48, 13 Stat. 39. This measure empowered the President to:

Read The Full CaseNot a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.

982 F.2d 1312 *; 1992 U.S. App. LEXIS 33585 **; 92 Cal. Daily Op. Service 10277; 92 Daily Journal DAR 17283; 24 Fed. R. Serv. 3d (Callaghan) 737

LILLIAN MCCOVEY SHERMOEN; CAROL LEIGH MCCONNELL AMMON; LESLIE AMMON; ELSIE MCCOVEY BACON; GAYLON ROBERT BACON; JOSEPH K. BACON; RAYMOND E. BACON; GEORGE CLIFFORD BAILEY, SR.; ETHEL MAE BLAKE; CLARANN C. (RAGAIN) BRAY; MARY L. CARROLL; ORA COLLINS; DENNIS COSTA; JOANNE BARBARA WILDER COSTA; BARNEY ALVA CURTICE; FRANK BENJAMIN DOWD; GERALD IESHH DOWD; KATHY NOREEN DOWD; ROCKY TWA-GAH DOWD; VENOLA DOWD; OLLIE ROBERTS SORRELL FOSEIDE; EILEEN RENEE (RAGAIN) GEORGE; FRANK GIST; BONITA BACON GREEN; JANICE MARIE GREENE; EARL GRIFFITH; COLLEEN GUIDO; DOROTHY HARRIET WILLIAMS HABERMAN; RICHARD LEE HABERMAN; MARY LOUISE HALL; EVALINA HOFFMAN; LINDA LEE HOFFMAN; VIRGINIA HOWERTON; MARTIN KINDER; RACHEL LOUISE KNIGHT; PAULINE ROGERS KOTHMAN; AXEL RODERICK LINDGREN; MARILYN KAY LUNSFORD; ARDITH EVELYN MCCONNELL; HOWARD DUANE MCCONNELL; MICHAEL MCCONNELL; ROBERT BRIAN MCCONNELL; ALLEN MCCOVEY, SR.; BEATRICE VIOLET MCCOVEY; DARRELL MCCOVEY; FRANK LYNN MCCOVEY; JAMES L. MCCOVEY; LOREN GERHAD MCCOVEY; VADA NORMA JOHN MCCOVEY; VLAYN DENE HARVILL MCCOVEY; DAVID EDGAR MCLAUGHLIN; THELMA WILMA MCLAUGHLIN; GERTRUDE VIOLA MOLLIER; CAROL GRIFFITH MOON; EDWARD MICHAEL MOORE; LENA ISLE NICHOLSON; DAVID O'NEILL; ELLEN J. O'NEILL; HERBERT LINCOLN O'NEILL; BARBARA D. ORCUTT; LAWRENCE E. ORCUTT; BERNICE JEAN ROUBIDOUX; DARLENE MARIE ROUBIDOUX; PEGGY JOYCE SANDERSON; JOHN DENTON SIMPSON, II; VIVIAN KAY SIMPSON; ALBERTA SYLVIA; MARIA EILEEN TRIPP; GEORGIANA TRULL; LENA CLEVELAND WILDER; and THE COAST INDIAN COMMUNITY OF YUROK INDIANS OF THE RESIGHINI RANCHERIA, a federally recognized tribe, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR, BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS; MANUEL LUJAN, Secretary of the Interior; EDDIE BROWN, Assistant Secretary of the Interior/Indian Affairs; RONALD M. JAEGER, Area Director, Sacramento Area Office, Bureau of Indian Affairs; and KAROLE OVERBERG, Superintendant, Northern California Agency, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Defendants-Appellees, DALE RISLING, SR.; ROBERT D. HOSTLER; CLIFFORD LYLE MARSHALL; and JOHN M. SCOTT, Intervenor Defendants-Appellees.

Prior History:  [**1]  Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. D.C. No. CV-90-02460-WHO. William H. Orrick, Jr., District Judge, Presiding

CORE TERMS

tribes, reservation, district court, parties, tribal, sovereign immunity, amended complaint, Square, indispensable, absent party, public right, intervenors, sovereign, joined, appellants', Settlement, factors, joinder, rights, tracts

Civil Procedure, Appeals, Standards of Review, Abuse of Discretion, Joinder of Parties, Compulsory Joinder, Necessary Parties, Governments, State & Territorial Governments, Claims By & Against, Parties, General Overview, Native Americans, Authority & Jurisdiction, Intervention, Intervention of Right, Indispensable Parties, Pleadings, Amendment of Pleadings, Leave of Court, Real Party in Interest, Federal Government