Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-89-04035/USCOURTS-ca10-89-04035-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 

---

.. FI LED 

United States C.ourt of Appeals 

Tenth Ci~cuit 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

UN 2 8 1990 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

DONNA LAND MALDONADO, BARBARA LAND 

Plaintiffs-Appellants, 

v. 

CUCH,) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

DONALD P. HODEL, in his official 

capacity as Secretary of the Interior, 

ROSSO. SWIMMER, in his official 

capacity as Assistant Secretary of the 

Interior for Indian Affairs, 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Defendants-Appellees. 

) 

) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

No. 89-4035 

(D.C. No. 86-C-1050G) 

(D. Utah) 

Before TACHA, SETH, Circuit Judges, and BROWN,** District Judge. 

**Honorable Wesley E. Brown, Senior District Judge, United States 

District Court for the District of Kansas, sitting by designation. 

Plaintiffs Donna Land Maldonado and Barbara Land Cuch, two 

"mixed blood" Ute Indians, brought this action against the 

Secretary of the Interior and the Assistant Secretary of the 

Interior for declaratory relief relating to certain federal 

actions taken in the early 1960's pursuant to the Ut~ Partition 

* This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall 

not be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, 

except for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of 

the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 

36.3. 

Appellate Case: 89-4035 Document: 010110037479 Date Filed: 06/28/1990 Page: 1 
Act, 25 U.S.C. §§ 677-677aa (1982) (Act). The district court 

dismissed their complaint upon determining that they had failed to 

state a claim upon which relief could be granted. 

appeal and we affirm. 1 

Plaintiffs 

An excellent summary of the Act and its implementation is set 

forth in both the district court's published opinion in this 

action , see Maldonado v. Hodel, 683 F. Supp. 1322, 1323-25 

(D. Utah 1988) and in the Supreme Court's opinion in Affiliated 

Ute Citizens v. United States, 406 U.S. 128, 133-39 (1972). As 

relevant to this decision, it is necessary only to state that the 

Act provided, among other things, for the termination of mixedblood Ute Indians as federally recognized Indians and for the 

partition and distribution of the Ute Indian Tribal assets of the 

Uintah and Ouray Reservation in Utah between the mixed-blood group 

and full-blood Ute Indians. 25 u.s.c. § 677. Under a 

Distribution Plan prepared by the mixed bloods and approved by the 

Secretary, the mixed bloods each received, in addition to their 

share of divisible tribal assets, ten shares of the Ute 

Distribution Corporation (UDC), which was formed by the mixed 

bloods to manage their share of income from oil, gas and mineral 

rights and other tribal assets that were not susceptible to 

equitable and practicable distribution. See Affiliated Ute 

Citizens, 406 U.S. at 136. UDC stock was freely alienable upon 

1 After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel 

has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially 

assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 

34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case is therefore ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

2 

Appellate Case: 89-4035 Document: 010110037479 Date Filed: 06/28/1990 Page: 2 
satisfaction of ce r tain conditions stated in UDC's articles of 

inc orporation and federal regulations. Id. at 137-38. 

distribution of these shares and divisible tribal assets, 

Upon 

the 

Secretary, as provided in the Act, terminated plaintiffs and other 

mixed-blood Ute Indians as federally recognized Indians. See 

26 Fed. Reg. 8042 (Aug. 24, 1961). This termination proclamation 

also terminated the federal trust over the mixed bloods' property. 

Id . ; see Affiliated Ute Citizens, 406 U.S. at 149-50. Plaintiffs 

apparently sold their UDC shares some time after issuance of this 

p roclamation. 

Plaintiffs now claim in this action that the Secretary 

viola ted the Act and breached fiduciary duties owed them when he 

approved the Distribution Plan, promulgated regulations permitting 

the al ienation of UDC stock and issued the proclamation 

te rminating plaintiffs' status as federally recognized Indians and 

the federal trust relationship over their property, including the 

UDC stock. As relief for these alleged errors, plaintiffs seek a 

declaration that, among other things, they are entitled to receive 

feder al services ava ilable to other Indians. 

The district court dismissed these claims on the ground that 

e a ch had been previously litigated and decided, either expressly 

or impliedly, by the Supreme Court in Affiliated Ute Citizens v. 

Un ited States, 406 U.S. 128 (1972) and by this court in Reyos v. 

United States, 431 F.2d 1337 (10th Cir. 1970), aff'd in part and 

rev'd in part sub nom. Affiliated Ute Citizens v. United States, 

406 U. S . 12 8 ( 1972 ). See Maldonado, 683 F. Supp. at 1327-28. We 

agree. In Affiliated Ute Citizens, the Supreme Court expressly 

3 

Appellate Case: 89-4035 Document: 010110037479 Date Filed: 06/28/1990 Page: 3 
approved formation of the UDC, and hence also approved the 

Distribution Plan's provision for UDC's formation. See 406 U.S. 

at 136, 143-44. The Court further approved the alienability of 

UDC stock. See id. at 150 (stating that UDC stock was "free of 

restriction . . . [such that] [t]here was no remaining 

governmental authority over those 

25 U. S.C. § 677n (granting mixed-blood 

dispose of property received in the 

shares."); see also 

members the right to 

distribution of tribal 

assets). The Court also expressly stated that the termination 

proclamation properly terminated the federal government's 

supervision over UDC and its shares. Affiliated Ute Citizens, 

406 U.S. at 149-50; see Reyos, 431 F.2d at 1343. Finally, as 

recognized in both Affiliated Ute Citizens, 406 U.S. at 150, and 

Reyos, 431 F.2d at 1343, the Act itself expressly provides for the 

termination of mixed bloods' status as federally recognized 

Indians upon completion of the Distribution Plan. See 

25 U.S.C. § 677v. 

Given the precedent established by these cases, we agree that 

plaintiffs have failed to state a claim upon which relief may be 

granted and therefore affirm the district court's dismissal of 

this action. Because we decide this appeal based on an analysis 

of the merits of plaintiffs' claims, we do not reach or decide the 

Secretary's additional argument that this action is barred by the 

statute of limitations stated in 28 u.s.c. § 2401 or express any 

opinion as to the district court's holding on this issue. 

4 

Appellate Case: 89-4035 Document: 010110037479 Date Filed: 06/28/1990 Page: 4 
For the reasons stated above, the judgment of the United 

States District Court for the District of Utah is AFFIRMED. 

ENTERED FOR THE COURT 

PER CURIAM 

5 

Appellate Case: 89-4035 Document: 010110037479 Date Filed: 06/28/1990 Page: 5