Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-01920/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-01920-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 05:551 Administrative Procedure 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 

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

JAMUL ACTION COMMITTEE, et al., 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

JONODEV CHAUDHURI, Acting 

Chairman of the National Indian Gaming 

Commission, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:13-cv-01920-KJM-KJN 

ORDER 

Walter Rosales and Karen Toggery move for leave to file an amicus curiae brief. 

ECF No. 75. After considering the parties’ briefing, the court took the matter under submission 

without a hearing. The motion is denied, as explained below. 

I. BACKGROUND 

The Jamul Action Committee, several of its individual members, and the Jamul 

Community Church are the plaintiffs here. The defendants are (1) several employees, officers, or 

appointees of the National Indian Gaming Commission, the Department of the Interior, and the 

Bureau of Indian Affairs (the federal defendants); and (2) several individual members of the 

Jamul Indian Village (the Tribal Members)1 and several corporations participating in the 

 1

 The Jamul Indian Village (the Tribe) is a federally recognized tribal entity entitled to 

tribal sovereign immunity. Order Aug. 5, 2014, at 7, ECF No. 50. The Tribe has not consented 

to this court’s jurisdiction and is not a defendant here. 

Case 2:13-cv-01920-KJM-KJN Document 92 Filed 04/17/15 Page 1 of 4
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

construction of a casino near Jamul, California (the tribally affiliated defendants). The complaint, 

now in its third iteration, seeks most fundamentally an injunction to halt construction of the 

casino.2 See Second Am. Compl. 30–31, ECF No. 51. 

In their motion, Rosales and Toggery describe themselves as “Native American 

residents of San Diego County of one-half or more degree of California Indian blood, and former 

leaders of the half-blood Indian community, known as the Jamul Indian Village.” Mem. P. & A. 

1, ECF No. 75-1. They claim interests in “their families’ remains and funerary objects” and in 

“the Indian cemetery property in which they were interred.” Id. at 0–1.3 They seek leave to file 

an amicus brief to correct “significant misrepresentations to the Court about the half-blood 

community’s status” and about “the merits of Walter Rosales and Karen Toggery’s beneficial 

ownership of their families’ human remains, funerary objects, and the cemetery property on 

which they lived, and which JIV has desecrated to construct a casino on land that does not qualify 

for Indian gambling.” Id. The memorandum filed with their motion alleges, 

[Mr. Rosales’ and Ms. Toggery’s] families’ remains and funerary 

objects are now being disinterred, desecrated and unceremoniously 

dumped by the Defendants in a race to illegally build a casino on 

the cemetery property before they are stopped and the law is 

enforced. More than 20 eyewitnesses have testified to the families’ 

interment on the cemetery property, and the undeniable evidence 

that the Defendants have illegally disinterred and dumped Walter 

and Karen’s families’ human remains and funerary objects on a 

State highway project at the juncture of State Routes 11-125-905 on 

the Mexican border. 

Id. at 2. To their motion, Rosales and Toggery attach a proposed amicus brief, ECF No. 75-2, 

and several exhibits and requests for judicial notice, see ECF Nos. 75-3, 76–82, 88. 

 2

 The complaint includes six claims for relief: (1) declaratory and injunctive relief for 

violation of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act; (2) declaratory and injunctive relief for violations 

of the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934; (3) declaratory and injunctive relief under 

constitutional principles of federalism and equal protection; (4) injunctive relief and damages for 

public nuisance and nuisance per se; (5) declaratory relief and mandate for violations of the 

National Environmental Protection Act; and (6) declaratory and injunctive relief for violation of 

California’s compact with the Tribe. See generally Second Am. Compl., ECF No. 51. 

3

 The memorandum’s second page is labelled page 1. 

Case 2:13-cv-01920-KJM-KJN Document 92 Filed 04/17/15 Page 2 of 4
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

The defendants oppose the motion. Tribal Members’ & Affiliated Defs.’ Opp’n, 

ECF No. 83; Fed. Opp’n, ECF No. 84. They argue the proposed amicus brief is untimely and 

irrelevant to any pending issues, Tribal Members’ Opp’n 4–5, 15–17; Fed. Opp’n 7–9, 11; is no 

more than a collateral attack on this court’s previous orders and federal decisional law, Tribal 

Members’ Opp’n 5–9, 13–14; Fed. Opp’n 10; injects new issues into this litigation, Tribal 

Members’ Opp’n 6–9; Fed. Opp’n 9–10; and ignores the requirements of this court’s standing 

order, Tribal Members’ Opp’n 14–15; Fed. Opp’n 6–7. 

II. DISCUSSION 

Federal district courts have broad discretion in the appointment of amici. 

Hoptowit v. Ray, 682 F.2d 1237, 1260 (9th Cir. 1982), abrogated on other grounds by Sandin v. 

Conner, 515 U.S. 472 (1995); In re Roxford Foods Litig., 790 F. Supp. 987, 997 (E.D. Cal. 1991). 

Although courts in general liberally allow the filing of amicus briefs, if a proposed brief would 

not be helpful, an amicus may be turned away. See Cmty. Ass’n for Restoration of Env’t (CARE) 

v. DeRuyter Bros. Dairy, 54 F. Supp. 2d 974, 975 (E.D. Wash. 1999) (citing Northern Sec. Co. v. 

United States, 191 U.S. 555, 556 (1903)). An amicus brief may be unhelpful for many reasons, 

including because it is untimely or does not provide information relevant to a pending decision. 

See id. 

Here, the proposed brief is unhelpful to resolve any pending issue and is best 

understood as a request for reconsideration of the court’s previous order. Only one other motion 

is pending: the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction and writ of mandate. ECF No. 60. 

It has been fully briefed. Id.; Fed. Opp’n Prelim. Inj., ECF No. 63; Tribal Members’ Opp’n 

Prelim. Inj., ECF No. 62; Reply Prelim. Inj., ECF No. 67. The court took the matter under 

submission on January 27, 2015. Minute Order, ECF No. 68. In that motion, the plaintiffs seek 

to enjoin construction of the casino until the federal defendants issue certain environmental 

impact statements. See Mem. P.&A. Supp. Prelim. Inj. 2, ECF No. 60-1. The proposed amicus 

brief does not address the basis of the plaintiffs’ pending motion, namely the proposed gaming 

management contract and its regulatory implications. See Mot. Prelim. Inj. 2–5, ECF No. 60-1. 

Case 2:13-cv-01920-KJM-KJN Document 92 Filed 04/17/15 Page 3 of 4
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 

4

To the extent the proposed amicus brief contests the Tribe’s federal recognition, 

the tribally affiliated defendants’ or the Tribe’s sovereign immunity, or argues the Tribe is not a 

necessary party, the proposed brief runs contrary to the court’s prior order. See Order Aug. 5, 

2014, at 7, ECF No. 50. That order addressed a motion filed nearly a year ago and decided 

several months before the proposed amicus brief was filed. Rosales and Toggery describe no 

reason for their delay. Nothing prevented an earlier motion or an application for reconsideration 

had it been denied. Now simply is not the time. 

III. CONCLUSION 

The motion is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: April 16, 2015. 

Case 2:13-cv-01920-KJM-KJN Document 92 Filed 04/17/15 Page 4 of 4