Citizen Band Potawatomi Indian Tribe of Oklahoma, a Federally Recognized Indian Tribe v. L.W. Collier, Jr., in His Official Capacity as the Area Director of the Anadarko Area Office of the Bureau of Indian Affairs, Department of the Interior

Citations: 17 F.3d 1292; 28 Fed. R. Serv. 3d 677; 1994 U.S. App. LEXIS 3301Docket: 93-6042

Court: Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit; February 24, 1994; Federal Appellate Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Citizen Band Potawatomi Indian Tribe of Oklahoma appealed the dismissal of its lawsuit against the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), which was based on the failure to join the Absentee-Shawnee tribe as an indispensable party. The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals had jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and reversed the district court's decision. 

The BIA is authorized under 25 U.S.C. § 465 to grant land trusts to eligible Indian applicants. A specific 1872 Act allows the Secretary of the Interior to allot land within the Potawatomi reservation to Absentee-Shawnee individuals under certain conditions. However, according to 25 C.F.R. § 151.8, the BIA cannot grant lands on an Indian reservation without the consent of the tribe in jurisdiction, unless the applicant tribe or individual already holds an interest in the land.

Upon discovering potential Absentee-Shawnee applications for land trusts on Potawatomi reservation land, the Potawatomi tribe inquired with the BIA, which neither confirmed nor denied the applications and incorrectly asserted that consent was unnecessary due to a shared historical reservation area. 

The Potawatomi tribe filed a lawsuit seeking declaratory relief to compel the BIA to obtain its consent before granting any land trusts on its reservation. After learning about the pending Absentee-Shawnee applications, the Potawatomi amended the complaint to include a mandamus request for the BIA to secure its consent. The BIA moved to dismiss the case under Rule 12(b)(7) for failing to join the Absentee-Shawnee tribe, and alternatively claimed the Potawatomi had not exhausted its administrative remedies. The district court dismissed the case solely on the ground of failing to join the Absentee-Shawnee tribe.

Reviewing a dismissal under Rule 12(b)(7) is subject to an abuse of discretion standard. The party moving for dismissal carries the burden to demonstrate the interest of an absent party and that this interest would be negatively affected by their absence. This burden can be met with affidavits or other relevant evidence. In this case, the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) submitted a letter from its Area Director stating that the Potawatomi and Absentee-Shawnee tribes share a common former reservation. However, this was insufficient as no further evidence was provided to clarify the Absentee-Shawnee's interest in the reservation lands. The BIA's appeal included a 1872 Act, which grants the Secretary of the Interior authority to allot land to individual Absentee-Shawnee members but does not confer collective rights to the tribe regarding Potawatomi lands. The Act does not establish a legally protected interest under relevant regulations, as it merely represents an expectation that the BIA will process applications similarly for both tribes. Since the BIA failed to provide adequate evidence of the Absentee-Shawnee tribe's interest in the land, the district court abused its discretion by dismissing the case. Consequently, the dismissal order is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings.