descrybe logo
You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.

June R. Benally Theodore Bedonie Billy C. Adeki Mary Yesslith Harvey Begay Mae Horseson Mary Jane Chissie Catherine Joe v. Donald P. Hodel Ross O. Swimmer, in His Individual Capacity and as Assistant Secretary Indian Affairs, United States Department of Interior Daniel L. Jackson, in His Individual Capacity and as Special Assistant to Assistant Secretary Indian Affairs, United States Department of Interior Navajo and Hopi Relocation Commission, an Independent Executive Agency of the United States Ralph A. Watkins, Jr., in His Individual Capacity and as Chairman of the Navajo and Hopi Indian Relocation Commission Hawley Atkinson, in His Individual Capacity and as Commissioner of the Navajo and Hopi Indian Relocation Commission Sandra Massetto, in Her Individual Capacity and as Commissioner of the Navajo and Hopi Indian Relocation Commission United States of America

Citation: 940 F.2d 1194Docket: 88-15244

Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit; October 1, 1991; Federal Appellate Court

Narrative Opinion Summary

In this appellate case, members of the Navajo Tribe appeal a district court's dismissal of their complaint for lack of standing. The appellants allege that the Secretary of the Interior and other officials failed to comply with the Navajo and Hopi Indian Settlement Act and the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Act regarding the relocation of Navajo individuals from Hopi land. They seek declaratory and injunctive relief to halt relocations until statutory and constitutional requirements are met. The court examines the standing requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act, noting that the Settlement Act does not confer individual procedural rights for broad challenges, as such rights are vested in tribal chairmen. The court also addresses the adequacy of the notice of appeal, affirming jurisdiction over all plaintiffs based on the inclusion of 'et al.' The appellate court concludes that the appellants lack standing to challenge the overall procedural framework of the Settlement Act, affirming the district court's judgment. The ruling underscores the role of tribal chairmen in litigating intertribal disputes and the limitations on individual litigants in these contexts. Ultimately, the court affirms the lower court's decision, reinforcing the statutory framework that governs tribal relocations and the procedural avenues available for addressing related grievances.

Legal Issues Addressed

Individual Standing in Tribal Disputes

Application: The Settlement Act does not confer individual procedural rights for broad challenges; instead, tribal chairmen are designated to represent individuals in intertribal disputes.

Reasoning: The analysis concludes that the Settlement Act does not confer individual procedural rights to Hopi and Navajo Indians, as neither the language nor the legislative history supports broad individual challenges.

Role of Tribal Chairmen in Litigation

Application: Tribal chairmen are responsible for bringing claims related to intertribal disputes, representing individual rights under the Settlement Act.

Reasoning: The Settlement Act grants an implicit procedural right to the chairmen of the Navajo and Hopi tribes to bring claims related to intertribal disputes, as they are responsible for vindicating individual rights under the Act.

Standing under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA)

Application: Appellants must demonstrate that their interests are within the zone of interests protected by the relevant statute to establish standing.

Reasoning: To establish standing under section 702 of the APA, a complainant's interest must be within the zone of interests protected by the relevant statute or constitutional guarantee.

Use of 'et al.' in Notices of Appeal

Application: The use of 'et al.' is acceptable in the notice of appeal when accompanied by a generic term like 'plaintiffs' or 'defendants' in the notice's body.

Reasoning: Ninth Circuit rulings interpreting Torres affirm that using 'et al.' in the caption is acceptable when accompanied by a generic term like 'plaintiffs' or 'defendants' in the notice's body.