Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_15-cv-01259/USCOURTS-azd-2_15-cv-01259-0/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 

Carol Coghlan Carter, et al.,

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

Kevin Washburn, et al., 

Defendants

No. CV-15-01259-PHX-NVW

ORDER 

Before the Court is the Gila River Indian Community’s Motion to Expedite Ruling 

on Its Motion to Intervene as Defendant. (Doc. 180.) 

This is an action originally brought by two sets of plaintiffs, each set consisting of 

an Indian child and two non-Indian foster parents seeking to adopt the child. The action 

challenges provisions of the Indian Child Welfare Act concerning such children. It is a 

putative class action on behalf of others similarly situated. The litigation is of great 

magnitude and of equal importance. 

Both State and Federal Defendants filed substantial motions to dismiss challenging 

the action on grounds of lack of injury, lack of standing, lack of ripeness, abstention, and 

failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Amicus curiae briefs have been 

freely allowed. The Gila River Indian Community filed a motion to intervene with a 

proposed motion to dismiss that itself challenges the Plaintiffs’ standing. (Doc. 47, 48.) 

The Navajo Nation also moved to intervene. (Doc. 81.) 

Case 2:15-cv-01259-NVW Document 192 Filed 05/13/16 Page 1 of 3
‐ 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 

At oral argument on all pending motions on December 18, 2015, ten days after the 

briefing was completed, the Court considered all briefs, including the IntervenerApplicants’ proposed briefs. The Intervener-Applicants were invited to participate in the 

oral argument, and the Indian Community declined. But counsel for Plaintiffs stated that 

one of the adoptions had gone through, suggesting possible mootness as to that set of 

Plaintiffs. Counsel also stated that they were working to add specific new plaintiffs. 

The Court concluded that all the pending motions needed to be resolved together 

and after the addition of any new plaintiffs. That is especially so for the motions to 

intervene because who the parties are very much affects intervention, and doubly so when 

justiciability is widely challenged based on the circumstances of plaintiffs. 

When the Plaintiffs had not filed a motion to amend their Complaint to add those 

additional plaintiffs by February 22, 2016, the Court ordered them to say whether and 

when they planned to do so. (Doc. 145.) On March 2, 2016, Plaintiffs filed a motion to 

amend to add another set of plaintiffs. (Doc. 150.) That motion was granted as soon as 

the briefing on the motion was complete. (Doc. 142.) The briefing is not yet complete 

on the ensuing motions to dismiss the Amended Complaint. 

The Gila River Indian Community asks for an expedited ruling on its Motion to 

Intervene. It also attaches to its motion a proposed Motion to Dismiss First Amended 

Complaint. (Doc. 180-1.) The Motion for Accelerated Ruling will be denied. 

First, the Indian Community has no good explanation why the Court must preview 

the reach and issues of the case by ruling on a motion to intervene before canvassing the 

reach and issues of the case on all the motions to dismiss. The Indian Communities’ brief 

on those motions will be considered, just as its previous brief was considered. The Indian 

Community demands major inefficiency and waste by the Court. 

Second, the Indian Community is quite mistaken when it says it is being 

prejudiced by the Court’s orderly management of this case and of their motion. The 

Indian Community has not been denied any participation in the case, as its proposed 

pleadings in intervention—their proposed motions to dismiss—have been and will be 

Case 2:15-cv-01259-NVW Document 192 Filed 05/13/16 Page 2 of 3
‐ 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 

considered in ruling on all the motions to dismiss. They will not be behind anyone in the 

disposition of their motion to dismiss if intervention is granted, and they will have the full 

benefit of their briefing even if intervention is denied. Due to the pendency of motions to 

dismiss, this Court has not done and cannot yet do anything affecting anyone’s interests. 

Nothing of substance has happened in this case that the Indian Community could have 

missed out on. 

As for participating in discovery, no party yet has the right to demand discovery 

because the parties have not yet had the planning conference under Rule 26(f), Federal 

Rules of Civil Procedure. See Rule 26(d)(1). The discovery that has gone on has to be 

by consent of the parties. The Indian Community does not say whether it sought consent 

from the parties to seek discovery, whether it sought consent and was refused, or even 

what discovery it would seek and why it needs the discovery before a ruling on all the 

pending motions to dismiss. 

The Indian Community respectfully requests the Court to rule on its Motion to 

Intervene by June 1, 2016. (Doc. 180 at 2, 5.) That is one day after briefing is due to be 

completed on the pending motions to dismiss. That is impossible, but the Indian 

Community need not fear any prejudice while the Court devotes to the pending motions 

the considerable effort that they require, none ahead of any other. 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Gila River Indian Community’s Motion 

to Expedite Ruling on Its Motion to Intervene as Defendant (Doc. 180) is denied. 

Dated: May 13, 2016. 

Neil V. Wake

United States District Judge 

Case 2:15-cv-01259-NVW Document 192 Filed 05/13/16 Page 3 of 3