Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_11-cv-06710/USCOURTS-cand-3_11-cv-06710-7/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

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

Case Management Statement

S:\LJM\Pldgs12\Resighini\Wilson\CMC.Statement2.wpd 1 Case No. CV 12-00556 CRB

LESTER J. MARSTON

California State Bar No. 081030

RAPPORT AND MARSTON

405 West Perkins Street

Ukiah, CA 95482

Telephone: 707-462-6846

Facsimile: 707-462-4235

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

RESIGHINI RANCHERIA, FRANK DOWD,

and GARY DOWD,

 Plaintiffs,

 vs.

 

DEAN WILSON, individually and in his

official capacity as Del Norte County Sheriff,

 Defendant.

______________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. CV 11 6710 EMC

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT

STATEMENT

DATE: January 3, 2013

TIME: 9:00 a.m.

CTRM.: 5, 17th Floor

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f), Civ. L. R 16-9, and this Court’s standing order, the

parties, having met and conferred, file the following case management statement:

Plaintiffs’ filed their First Amended Complaint (“Amended Complaint”) in this matter on

July 2, 2012, following the dismissal without prejudice of plaintiffs’ claims against defendant

Charleton H. Bonham individually and in his official capacity as the Director of the California

Department of Fish & Game, pursuant to the Court’s May 31, 2012, Order Granting Defendants’

Motion to Dismiss. In the Amended Complaint, the plaintiffs named as defendant Dean Wilson

individually and in his official capacity as the Del Norte County Sheriff. The Amended Complaint

was served on defendant Wilson on July 27, 2012. Defendant Wilson has not filed an answer or

other responsive pleading in this case. On August 15, 2012, legal counsel for the plaintiffs were

; ORDER

Case 3:11-cv-06710-EMC Document 43 Filed 01/02/13 Page 1 of 7
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

Case Management Statement

S:\LJM\Pldgs12\Resighini\Wilson\CMC.Statement2.wpd 2 Case No. CV 12-00556 CRB

informed by the office of the County Counsel for Del Norte County that the County Counsel had

received authorization to represent defendant Wilson in this matter on August 14, 2012. County

Counsel’s office, therefore, requested an extension of time to file an answer. Plaintiffs stipulate

to an extension of time and the Court entered an order granting the extension. The defendant’s then

filed a motion to dismiss on September 19, 2012. Following the filing of the motion to dismiss the

parties entered into substantive settlement negotiations that resulted in the parties filing a

stipulation with the Court on October 10, 2012, staying proceedings in the case for 60 days to allow

the parties to continue to pursue settlement of the case. Since the filing of the October 10, 2012,

stipulation, the parties have been negotiating in good faith. The parties have reached a tentative

settlement of the case and have reduced that settlement to writing in the form of a writing

stipulation for entry of judgment. Counsel for both parties are currently reviewing the proposed

settlement with their respective clients. Given the holidays, the parties anticipate that they will need

an additional 60 days to concluded their settlement negotiations and request that the Court set a

new date for the case management conference 60 days from today’s date.

1. Jurisdiction and Service: The Court has jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ claims based

upon 28 U.S.C. § 1331, in that the Plaintiffs’ claims arise under the Constitution and laws of the

United States; and (b) 28 U.S.C. § 1362, in that this civil action is brought by a federally

recognized Indian tribe whose claims arise under the Constitution and the laws of the United States.

There are no issues with regard to venue and, no defendants remain to be served, pending the filing

of a second amended complaint. 

2. Facts: Plaintiffs Gary Dowd and Frank Dowd (“Individual Plaintiffs”), members

of the plaintiff Resighini Rancheria (“Tribe”), were cited for California Fish and Game Code

violations, specifically, fishing on the Klamath River without a Yurok Tribal ID. Plaintiffs allege

both citations were issued by law enforcement officers deputized by the Sheriff to exercise state

peace officer powers and to enforce California law. In each instance, the Individual Plaintiffs were

fishing within the boundaries of the old Klamath River Reservation/Extension. The Del Norte

County District Attorney later dismissed all charges against both Individual Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs

maintain that the Individual Plaintiffs were fishing pursuant to the federally reserved fishing rights

Case 3:11-cv-06710-EMC Document 43 Filed 01/02/13 Page 2 of 7
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

Case Management Statement

S:\LJM\Pldgs12\Resighini\Wilson\CMC.Statement2.wpd 3 Case No. CV 12-00556 CRB

of the Resighini Rancheria, and the arrests constitute an interference with those rights. Plaintiffs

contend that the law enforcement officers carrying out the arrests were exercising peace officer

powers pursuant to deputation by defendant Wilson. Plaintiffs bring this action to prevent Wilson

and anyone acting pursuant to his authority from arresting Resighini Tribal members for exercising

their federally reserved fishing rights.

3. Legal Issues: The main legal issues in this case are as follows. (1) Whether the

Sheriff and the Department of Fish and Game have jurisdiction to enforce the civil regulatory

provisions of the State’s Fish and Game Code against the members of the Tribe in the Indian

Country of the old Klamath River Indian Reservation/Extension pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1360, and

18 U.S.C. § 1162 (“P.L. 280”); (2) Whether the Sheriff and the Department have civil regulatory

authority over the Tribe’s regulation of fishing by its members within the Indian Country of the old

Klamath River Indian Reservation/Extension under P.L. 280; and (3) Whether the Sheriff and the

Department have deprived the Individual Plaintiffs and the members of the Tribe of their federally

reserved right to fish in the Klamath River at the Tribe’s usual and customary fishing places within

the old Klamath River Reservation/ Extension, free of State regulation and control, in violation of

42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution.

4. Motions: Defendant’s have filed a motion to dismiss. The hearing date for the

motion has been vacated pursuant to the order of this Court to allow the parties to pursue

settlement. No other motions are pending. 

5. Amendment of Pleadings: Plaintiffs intend to file a second amended complaint to

add officials of the California Department of Fish & Game as defendants and to add allegations

about the relationship between the actions of defendant and the actions of California Department

of Fish & Game officials. 

6. Evidence Preservation: Neither party has any concerns about evidence

preservation, as the issues in this case are legal issues based on facts that are not in dispute.

7. Disclosures: No Rule 26 disclosures have been made in response to the Amended

Complaint because the parties are pursuing settlement of the case.

8. Discovery: No discovery has been carried out in this case. The parties have not yet

Case 3:11-cv-06710-EMC Document 43 Filed 01/02/13 Page 3 of 7
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

Case Management Statement

S:\LJM\Pldgs12\Resighini\Wilson\CMC.Statement2.wpd 4 Case No. CV 12-00556 CRB

engaged in discovery or developed a discovery plan pursuant to Rule 26(f) because the parties have

been putting all of their efforts into settling the case.

9. Class Action: This is not a class action.

10. Related Cases: There are no related cases. 

11. Relief: Plaintiff seeks the following relief. (1) A declaration that defendant Wilson

and the peace officers deputized by the Del Norte County Sheriff’s Department (“Department”) and

exercising the State of California peace officer powers delegated to them by defendant Wilson have

no jurisdiction to enforce the provisions of the California Fish and Game Code against members

of the Tribe within the boundaries of the old Klamath River Reservation/Extension; (2) A

declaration that, under P.L. 280, defendant Wilson and officers deputized by the Department,

exercising the State of California peace officer powers delegated to them by defendant Wilson, lack

civil regulatory authority over the Tribe’s regulation of fishing by its members on the Klamath

River within the old Klamath River Reservation/Extension; (3) A declaration that defendant

Wilson and the Department, under color of State law (the provisions of the California Fish and

Game Code) have deprived plaintiffs Frank Dowd and Gary Dowd and the members of the Tribe

of the right to fish in the Klamath River within the old Klamath River Reservation/Extension free

of state regulation and control, a right guaranteed to them by federal law, in violation of 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983; (4) An order preliminarily and permanently enjoining defendant Wilson, his agents and

employees, and law enforcement officers exercising State of California peace officer powers

delegated to them by defendant Wilson from citing members of the Tribe for fishing on the

Klamath River within the old Klamath River Reservation/Extension not in accordance with State

law; and (5) Award the plaintiffs their costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C.

§ 1988.

12. Settlement and ADR: The parties have not discuss utilizing the ADR process

because the attorneys for the parties have reached agreement on a tentative settlement of the case.

13. Consent to Magistrate Judge for All Purposes: This matter has already been

assigned to Judge Chen.

14. Other References: The parties have not discussed the suitability of the case for

Case 3:11-cv-06710-EMC Document 43 Filed 01/02/13 Page 4 of 7
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

Case Management Statement

S:\LJM\Pldgs12\Resighini\Wilson\CMC.Statement2.wpd 5 Case No. CV 12-00556 CRB

reference to binding arbitration, a special master, or the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation

because the parties have been pursuing settlement of the case.

15. Narrowing of Issues: The parties have not discussed the likelihood of narrowing

the issues in this case because they have been pursing settlement of the case. However, the parties

agree that the issues in this case are limited, legal issues, and that all but one fact about the

deputation of an officer is undisputed.

16. Expedited Trial Procedure: The parties agree that, because, the issues in this case

are limited, legal issues, summary proceedings will be appropriate in this case.

17. Scheduling: The parties have not discussed scheduling because they are pursuing

settlement, except to determine how much additional time they need to concluded settlement

negotiations.

18. Trial: The parties have not discussed the issues relating to trial because they are

pursuing settlement of the case, but the parties expect the case to be determined based on a motion

to dismiss or cross motions for summary judgment.

19. Disclosure of Non-party Interested Entities or Persons: The parties have not

discussed submission of disclosures of non-party interested entities or persons because they are

pursuing settlement of the case.

20. Other Matters: The parties request that the Case Management Conference in this

matter, presently scheduled for January 3, 2013, be rescheduled to 60 days from the date of the

filing of this joint case management statement to allow the parties the opportunity to concluded

settlement negotiations. 

Dated: December 28, 2012 Respectfully Submitted,

RAPPORT AND MARSTON

By: /s/ Lester J. Marston 

 LESTER J. MARSTON

 Attorneys for Plaintiffs

Case 3:11-cv-06710-EMC Document 43 Filed 01/02/13 Page 5 of 7
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

Case Management Statement

S:\LJM\Pldgs12\Resighini\Wilson\CMC.Statement2.wpd 6 Case No. CV 12-00556 CRB

Dated: December 28, 2012 DEL NORTE COUNTY COUNSEL

By: /s/ Gretchen Stuhr 

 GRETCHEN STUHR

 Attorney for Defendant

IT IS SO ORDERED that the CMC is reset from 1/3/13 to 3/7/13 at 9:00 a.m. A joint 

CMC Statement shall be filed by 2/28/13. 

_________________ 

Edward M. Chen 

U.S. District Judge

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORN

I

A

IT IS SO ORDERED

Judge Edward M. Chen

Case 3:11-cv-06710-EMC Document 43 Filed 01/02/13 Page 6 of 7
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

Case Management Statement

S:\LJM\Pldgs12\Resighini\Wilson\CMC.Statement2.wpd 7 Case No. CV 12-00556 CRB

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, LESTER J. MARSTON, hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was this date

served upon all counsel of record by electronically filing the foregoing with the Clerk of the U.S.

District for the Northern District of California, using its ECF system, which automatically provides

electronic notification to the following:

Cecilia Louise Dennis

Office of the California Attorney General

455 Golden Gate Avenue, Suite 11000

San Francisco, CA 95814

(415) 703-5395

Matthew G. Bullock

State of California of the Attorney General

455 Golden Gate Avenue, Suite 11000

San Francisco, CA 95814

(415) 703-1678

Attorney for Defendant Charles H. Bonham

Gretchen Maria Stuhr

Del Norte County Counsel

981 H Street, Suite 220

Crescent City, CA 95531

(707) 464-7208

Attorney for Dean Wilson

/s/ Lester J. Marston 

LESTER J. MARSTON, Attorney

for Plaintiffs

Case 3:11-cv-06710-EMC Document 43 Filed 01/02/13 Page 7 of 7