in january two thousand and seventeen filed a civil rights lawsuit constitutional tort claim lawsuit against certain officers of the oglala sioux tribe in pine ridge south dakota essentially the suit alleged that he had been driving through the pine ridge indian reservation on a us highway was arrested for traffic citations  overdue or not and addressed traffic violations was jailed he alleged he was beaten or kicked kicked in the leg at least and was actually ordered to strip naked at gunpoint and that seven hundred dollars was stolen from him in south dakota essentially the the judge ruled that the oglala sioux tribal defendants are immune from civil rights lawsuits of this type  the common law claims were and also was there an indian civil rights act claim there was not mr stanko did not have that in there that being an indian civil rights act claim he did not have an indian sentially he alleged violation of fourth amendment rights assault and battery and theft now why the indian civil rights act issue is an interesting issue because it applies in a narrow it really supports our position because it stands for the proposition that governmental authorities on the reservations have to apply they have to they are required by the bill of rights by the way the treaties that these tribes agreed to require all government all officers to recognize the bill of rights and protect all peoples liberty and again this is a u s highway this is a non indian non non tribal member traveling through the reservation he's not a resident of the pine ridge reservation he's a resident of a different state nebraska and the appellee has essentially has asserted that a court that has jurisdiction of a general sense over tribal matters within the reservation but for a non indian from a different state traveling through it's not a workable venue to file any civil rights litigation absolutely right about one thousand nine hundred three not providing a source of rights against native american defendants and trying you know before we get to the exhaustion question which you on avoidable and difficult you have to find the source you have to identify a source of rights well what's important have to be a claim under it but i don't see any source of the civil rights as you're using the word other then that would apply to this on reservation situation what's important is that these are governmental actors these are not just people these are not it's we have to find federal question jurisdiction currents now and there has to be a federal source of what you're saying the civil rights that were violated if there isn't one obviously then the  for media local venue well you have to fight you have to identify a federal source of the civil rights being asserted that would provide federal question jurisdiction in the district court well i think the bivins case is very apropos it's very appropriate to look at because oh well it's holding applies to federal officers now these tribal officers are not federal officers in the perfect sense however they are governmental officers within jurisdictions within the united states they're not governmental offices of a state correct or federal well they're not federal in that in i guess every sense of that phrase in any sense well any governmental entity cannot you cannot operate a facility you cannot operate a jail in it within the any jurisdiction in the united states where you're beating people raping people whatever you are a governmental entity and you certainly are not a state officer and but i think the treaties more or less yeah what's yours what's yours federal there are so many provisions of constitutional law that i think would would actually just overturn in imagine if stanko had filed his his lawsuit in tribal court had gone before a jury of indians i think that the merits of a tribal court decision i don't think they've totally acknowledge that even or worse sort of signed off one way or the other well by the way it's my it's my it's the other side that has used the phrase  yeah well certainly there's no there's there's no court in the war in the us jurisdiction i mean in states federal or otherwise that would that can that can allow someone to be arrested improperly beaten raped robbed you know script at gunpoint you know this is an onion this would be unheard of if if this kind of think is uphill and everything you were just saying about who decided that it whether that was wrong were committed yeah federal district court is the only workable place for this kind of civil rights litigation that i mean state courts are we get we can seize jurisdiction from state courts because ok i like the way they're they're enforcing federal civil rights ok well there's my there's my point exactly the stake the nine hundred eighty three applies to state can be litigated in state court or federal court here you're dealing with a non option to get them to toughen  by congress and then the courts stepped in and said no the fourth amendment actually has to have a remedy there has to be a place where you can assert violations and forcing it to show your light you you you have no well mr stanko initial complaint did did lay out constitutional violations yeah i would like to reserve just i have one minute and twenty six i'd like to reserve a minute after my tribe is as the supreme court said in santa clara public a distinct independent political community retaining its original natural rights in matters of local self government the tribe possesses sovereignty over both doesn't matter is ensuring the federal courts have fashioned restrictions on travel powers of self government as they relate to nonmembers of the tribe but this court  those restraints are more strict in the case of criminal jurisdiction and they allow for more leeway in the case of civil jurisdiction i would note that in this case we're dealing with with multiple traffic thousand and five that the overall astute tribe has the inherent authority to maintain public safety and preserve public order on the pine ridge indian reservation including and i quote the authority to detain non indians whose conduct disturbs the public order on the reservation this case was decided on a motion to dismiss and so we're left with the facts as they are in the complaint but mr sankoh himself acknowledges that he was stopped on more than one occasion for speeding and we do cite that the two speeding instances in which on here you're you're arguing as though as though this is somehow he seeking a collateral review of  taken by a tribal judge the inference i can't get a fair trial there your honor just this you know there's a long history of the federal government based on constitutional rights being sympathetic with providing a forum for those kinds of claims that will resolve them properly and fairly and subject to appellate review now where we'll when the whe and if the tribal court as these claims and either says that's not illegal in our reservation i can imagine they do that but we find we find to the contrary or you know there's no source rights here that i did worth the appeal there are any appeal beyond the trial and if if mr stanko were to bring an indian civil rights act claim or a common law claim based on the so i don't think we're in an exhaustion situation where he would then bring the case to this court to determine whether the tribal court had jurisdiction the u s supreme court has never held that it has  stiction to review the final decision of a tribal court of the tribe the legal position is that there is there is no federal court with the other than the tribal courts which are  with regard to extra the supreme court held in santa clara pueblo but that it itself it's so different i mean that's where the indian on indian dry creek lodge that during the distinction application to cases where there is no functioning tribal court and that's the criminal case your honor and it's not controlling to me well it's not controlling to me dry cl control what i would say just read a breath of the assertions by the driver when when you go beyond the one nine hundred eighty three issues in the briefs or frankly to me very very troublesome and disturbing i ruling rejecting civil claims that's complete it's completely off point i think mr stanko alleges that he was detained by tribal officials but i'm more i'm more concerned about about the the the classic hundred eighty three or beyond claims of for lack of a better word outrageous government on what i don't what i'll say is this your honor i have it i know that the case was decided on a motion to dismiss but i have a duty of candor to the court does opposing counsel and that the entire proceedings in the tribal correctional facility were recorded with video and audio recording and they do not bear out the allegations that are in the complaint in any fashion but those facts are untested and unproved and i know that the district court had to take them as true but we the defendant categorically deny in every way that any of these events occurred and this is not the first record aired in construing that the complaint is strictly a nine hundred eighty three case and then when i go from there it gets real difficult you know for iran or mr stanko preceded pro se in the court gave latitude in construing his pleading the pleading raises a nine hundred eighty three claim and unspecified claims under the common law to enforce those rights there is thirteen thirteen thirty one federal question jurisdiction to me that's that's that's and i think that was screwed squarely addressed by the supreme court in santa clara pueblo where the court found but they also recognize that congress was was adapting and applying the bill of rights to the reservation i think that the court has never held that the u s constitution applies to indian tribes tribes but let's call them quezon i constitutional rights well it's a statute that is reflected as as an acted by congress now why isn't that white why isn't that a legitimate source of a federal common law cause of action well the supreme court i think your honor said it you know i think they addressed it in santa clara where they said because they weren't didn't they were dealing entirely internal dispute among members of the tribe and the tribal board this is couldn't be further from that this is this is a not an indian venturing on reservation allegedly then is raped beaten and robbed what i would say i mean you know goes without saying that those allegations would violate more than one provision in the bill of rights if done by a federal or state officers would be clear those actions if they were true they would violate the indian civil rights act and they would also violate the oglala sioux tribal constitution which incorporates correct and i guess if they were federal officers i suspect they courts force built ins well they may well the question is why if this is a legitimate federal if there's a if there's a true federal source of the right being claimed why isn't a fence why isn't there a federal court alternative venue to consider the indian tribes are not under the united states constitution they are distinct separate political entities they have treaties with the united states the oglala sioux tribe entered the treaty of eight hundred fifty one in the treaty of eight hundred sixty eight those treaties guarantee tribal self government the united states involving a non indian order that absent a congressional statute authorizing a different court to have jurisdiction but jurisdiction of the tribal court is exclusive and that's williams versus lee this this court has in cases involving common law claims refused to find the federal jurisdiction in cases arising both under contract and property law and care and some cases involving non indians so those claims can be litigated in the tribal court and i would also note in order for the court to reach the question of whether there is an implied federal common law right of action that arises out of it raw or the spirit of agra the court would have to rican strewn mr stack goes complaint his complaint pleads a section one nine hundred eighty three violation and unspecified common law cause of action it's a ten count complaint and every count of the complaint references a right under the united states constitution save one count which references vs rights and i think that references the rights referred to in the other nine counts so mr stanko as per was pro se when he filed  complaint but these issues were raised and they were litigated on a motion to dismiss he didn't seek leave to amend his complaint and he hasn't done so since he retained counsel mr sankoh is not a stranger to the federal courts a simple search for rudy stanko reveals over one hundred published decisions in which mr stanko was a litigant so i understand the deference but his case does not raise an eck reclaim your honors ask mr routes is there an egg require him he said no there is no extra claim and so i think that when we look at the one nine hundred eighty three cause of action it's clear that for two reasons it was properly dismissed one the u but there were a number of different claims that mr stanko brought and we divided them into four categories the claims against the overall us to try of course are barred by sovereign immunity and even the supreme court in santa clara pueblo held that tribes may not be sued under the acra only individual yes i think that's right and as far as the individual sued an official capacity the court is well aware that that's treated as a suit against the government so we're left with the and they also would would fail we would suggest if they are common law tort claims they arise under tribal law and the court would have no no supplemental jurisdiction in the absence of a federal law question thank you thank you mr gunn this is just this they are idea of the the indian civil rights act it's being thrown out a lot today at this at this moment here it was not even  you're just you know well for a non indian easy to get sloppy and these issues mr sankoh might have some experience in in the courts but but to expect that he has experience in tribal court would be  beyond beyond the pale for even for you know someone with experience otherwise aren't you really saying that the it grow is is a red herring because there's no it or claim brought there's no way i could claim brought but it wasn't even brought up in provided to us this morning very interesting issues of jurisdiction and we will take the case hundred bars and render decision in due course thank you may be