Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_10-cv-08080/USCOURTS-azd-3_10-cv-08080-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:2674 Federal Tort Claims 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

Darlene Williams, et al., 

Plaintiffs, 

vs.

Elroy Naswood, United States, 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-10-8080-PCT-FJM

ORDER

The court has before it defendant United States’ motion to dismiss (doc. 15),

plaintiffs’ response (doc. 18), and the United States’ reply (doc. 20).

This action was filed by Darlene Williams on behalf of herself and the estate of her

deceased son, Brett Williams. The complaint alleges that defendant Elroy Naswood, a tribal

officer with the Navajo Police Department, responded to a domestic disturbance call at the

Williams’ home. When Officer Naswood arrived at the scene a fight ensued between Officer

Naswood and Brett Williams, which ended in Officer Naswood shooting and killing Mr.

Williams. Plaintiffs filed this wrongful death action against Officer Naswood and the United

States pursuant to the Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”), 28 U.S.C. §§ 1346(b), 2671-2680.

It is well settled that the United States is immune from lawsuits except to the extent

Case 3:10-cv-08080-FJM Document 26 Filed 03/14/11 Page 1 of 3
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

1

The parties dispute whether the plaintiff must also show that the tribal officer was

enforcing federal law at the time of the alleged tort in order to establish a waiver of sovereign

immunity. We need not decide that issue, however, because we conclude that Officer

Naswood did not hold an SLEC, and therefore he was not acting as a federal law enforcement

officer.

- 2 -

that it consents to be sued. FDIC v. Meyer, 510 U.S. 471, 475, 114 S. Ct. 996, 1000 (1994).

The FTCA waives the United States’ sovereign immunity with respect to certain intentional

torts of federal law enforcement officers. 28 U.S.C. § 2680(h). The Act defines a federal

law enforcement officer as “any officer of the United States who is empowered by law to

execute searches, to seize evidence, or to make arrests for violations of Federal law.” Id.

The parties agree a tribal police officer is not a “federal law enforcement officer” for

purposes of the FTCA unless the officer was commissioned by the Secretary of the Interior

with a Special Law Enforcement Commission (“SLEC”) under the Indian Law Enforcement

Reform Act, 25 U.S.C. § 2804. 

The United States submits a declaration from Dan Breuninger, the special agent in

charge of issuing SLECs on behalf of the Bureau of Indian Affairs, attesting that Tribal

Officer Naswood did not have an SLEC at the time of the incident and was not authorized

to execute searches, to seize evidence, or to make arrests for violations of federal law. Reply,

ex. A. In deciding an unenumerated Rule 12(b), Fed. R. Civ., motion based on the

affirmative defense of immunity, we may look to evidence beyond the complaint without

converting the motion into one for summary judgment. White v. Lee, 227 F.3d 1214, 1242

(9th Cir. 2000). 

A review of the Breuninger declaration establishes that Officer Naswood did not hold

an SLEC at the time of the incident. Therefore, he was not a federal law enforcement officer

within the meaning of the FTCA. See 28 U.S.C. § 2680(h). Accordingly, there is no

applicable waiver of sovereign immunity.1

 

IT IS ORDERED GRANTING the United States’ motion to dismiss (doc. 15).

Because the undisputed facts preclude liability, the dismissal of the case against the United

Case 3:10-cv-08080-FJM Document 26 Filed 03/14/11 Page 2 of 3
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

- 3 -

States is with prejudice. See Gadda v. State Bar of Calif., 511 F.3d 933, 939 (9th Cir. 2007).

DATED this 14th day of March, 2011.

Case 3:10-cv-08080-FJM Document 26 Filed 03/14/11 Page 3 of 3