Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-00786/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-00786-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Rahne Pistor et al, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Carlos Garcia et al, 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-12-00786-PHX-FJM

ORDER

The court has before it the Tribal Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment on

Plaintiffs’ State Law Claims (doc. 75), plaintiffs’ Response (doc. 90), and the Tribal

Defendants’ Reply (doc. 96). 

The Tribal Defendants’ sought and received a stay of discovery proceedings (doc. 82)

as to the Tribal Defendants only, but that stay does not affect the non-Tribal Defendants, nor

does it interfere with our authority to act on a previously filed motion by the Tribal

Defendants that does not in any way depend upon discovery by or against the Tribal

Defendants. Indeed, we earlier suggested in open court that even if plaintiffs could develop

sufficient evidence to support a federal claim against the Tribal Defendants, only the § 1983

claim would lie(if the individuals were acting under color of state, not tribal law), not state

claims because state law does not apply to on reservation conduct by members of the Tribe

on whose reservation the conduct occurs. It is on that basis that the Tribal Defendants move

for summary judgment on the state law claims only. 

Case 2:12-cv-00786-FJM Document 111 Filed 06/07/13 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 2 -

Plaintiffs mistakenly conflate their §1983 claim with their state law claims. As noted

by the Tribal Defendants, state law does not apply to the Tribal Defendants, McClanahan v.

Arizona State Tax Commission, 411 U.S. 164 (1973), even if tribal sovereign immunity does

not attach to their conduct in their individual capacities. On reservation conduct by tribal

members is subject to tribal law and federal law. But it is not subject to state law unless

Congress so directs. No such federal statute allows the assertion of state law here. And to

sustain the federal claim, plaintiffs will have to come forward with evidence that the tribal

members were acting under color of state law, i.e., they were acting on behalf of the state

instead of their tribe or on behalf of themselves. Order of Sept. 5, 2012 (doc. 44). 

Accordingly, it is ORDERED GRANTING the Tribal Defendants’ Motion for

Summary Judgment on Plaintiffs’ State Law Claims (doc. 75). 

DATED this 6th day of June, 2013.

Case 2:12-cv-00786-FJM Document 111 Filed 06/07/13 Page 2 of 2