Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-92-06079/USCOURTS-ca10-92-06079-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 

---

FIL ._, J 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEAL~nited States Coi:rt of Appeal!' 

Tenth Cirf.!uit 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

PATRICIA K. SULCER, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v. 

ROBERT F. DAVIS, HILTON MELOT, THE 

CITIZEN BAND POTAWATOMI INDIAN TRIBE 

OF OKLAHOMA and JOHN A. BARRETT, JR. , 

Defendants-Appellees, 

and 

JAMES A. BARRETT, JR. and JAMES YOUNG, 

Defendants. 

FEB 1 8 1993 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

> Ck~ . ) 

) 

) 

) No. 92-6079 

) (D.C . No. CIV-91-1170-C) 

) (W. D. Okla . ) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before TACHA and BALDOCK, Circuit Judges, and BROWN,** Senior 

District Judge. 

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

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

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel 

has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially 

* 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: 92-6079 Document: 010110175774 Date Filed: 02/18/1993 Page: 1 
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. 

Plaintiff-appellant Patricia K. Sulcer brought an action in 

tribal court against members of the Citizen Band Potawatomi Indian 

Tribe Business Committee after she was terminated from her 

position as Director of the Communications Department and 

newspaper editor. The tribal court concluded it lacked 

jurisdiction on grounds of sovereign immunity . She then commenced 

this action in federal district court against the committee 

members and the tribe, alleging her termination was in violation 

of tribal law and the Indian Civil Rights Act (ICRA) , 25 U.S.C. 

§§ 1301-1341, because it was without cause or due process, and 

because the business committee members lacked authority to 

terminate her. She asserted that the federal district court had 

jurisdiction under the ICRA, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343, and 

42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985, and requested damages, back pay, and 

front pay or, alternatively, reinstatement. 

The district court concluded that the tribe was entitled to 

sovereign immunity, that plaintiff failed to show the individual 

defendants acted outside the scope of their authority when they 

terminated her and they were therefore protected by sovereign 

immunity, and that the tribal court correctly determined it lacked 

jurisdiction over plaintiff' s action. Plaintiff challenges these 

rulings. We review de nova a dismissal for lack of subject matter 

2 

Appellate Case: 92-6079 Document: 010110175774 Date Filed: 02/18/1993 Page: 2 
jurisdiction. Bank of Okla. v. Muscogee (Creek) Nation, 972 F.2d 

1166, 1168-69 (10th Cir. 1992). We affirm. 1 

I. Indian Civil Rights Act 

The Supreme Court held in Santa Clara Pueblo v. Martinez, 436 

U. S. 49, 59 (1978), that the ICRA did not waive the sovereign 

immunity that Indian tribes enjoy . Thus, the district court 

correctly held that it had no jurisdiction over the ICRA claim 

against the tribe. 

A tribal officer is entitled to sovereign immunity if his 

actions are within the scope of his authority. Tenneco Oil Co. v. 

Sac & Fox Tribe of Indians, 725 F.2d 572, 576 (10th Cir. 

1984) (McKay, J., concurring) (citing Larson v. Domestic & Foreign 

Commerce Corp., 337 U.S. 682, 695 (1949)). The defendant business 

committee members are immune from suit under the ICRA in federal 

court if the action they took that resulted in plaintiff's 

termination was within the scope of their authority. However, 

even if they are not protected by sovereign immunity, there is no 

cause of action against them under the ICRA in federal court . 

Santa Clara Pueblo, 436 U. S. at 72. See also Wheeler v . Swimmer, 

835 F. 2d 259, 261 (10th Cir. 1987) ( "The only federal relief 

1 Defendants have moved to strike certain documents that were 

attached to plaintiff's brief and references thereto in her brief 

on the ground that the documents were not part of the record 

before the district court. Having received no objection from 

plaintiff, and having reviewed the record and finding no 

indication that these documents were submitted to the district 

court, we grant the motion. We will disregard these attachments 

and the references to them in plaintiff's brief. See In re 

Inspection of Norfolk Dredging Co., 783 F . 2d 1526, 1532 n.7 (11th 

Cir.), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 883 (1986) . 

3 

Appellate Case: 92-6079 Document: 010110175774 Date Filed: 02/18/1993 Page: 3 
available under the Indian Civil Rights Act against a tribe or its 

officers is a writ of habeas corpus."). 

Plaintiff, relying on Dry Creek Lodge, Inc. v. Arapahoe & 

Shoshone Tribes, 623 F.2d 682 (10th Cir. 1980), cert. denied, 449 

U.S. 1118 (1981), argues that because the tribal forum has been 

denied to her, she is entitled to seek relief in federal court. 

We disagree. We held in Dry Creek Lodge that the plaintiffs could 

maintain an action in federal court against a tribe under the ICRA 

notwithstanding sovereign immunity. Id. at 685. This exception 

has been narrowly construed to apply only where the dispute does 

not concern internal tribal affairs, the plaintiff is a nonIndian, and tribal remedies have actually been denied to the 

plaintiff. Nero v. Cherokee Nation, 892 F.2d 1457, 1460 (10th 

Cir. 1989). The fact that plaintiff is a non-Indian and was 

denied access to the tribal forum is insufficient under Dry Creek 

Lodge because the dispute here involves a matter of internal 

tribal affairs. See id. n.5 ("tribal sovereign immunity may 

preclude federal court jurisdiction over non-Indian complaints 

brought under the ICRA even if tribal remedies are unavailable."). 

The district court correctly dismissed the ICRA claim against the 

committee members. 

II. Section 1331 

Plaintiff contends that the tribal court improperly dismissed 

her action on jurisdictional grounds because it was the proper 

forum "to vindicate rights created by the ICRA. 11 Santa Clara 

Pueblo, 436 U. S. at 65. National Farmers Union Insurance Cos. v. 

Crow Tribe of Indians, 471 U.S. 845, 853 (1985), held that federal 

4 

Appellate Case: 92-6079 Document: 010110175774 Date Filed: 02/18/1993 Page: 4 
courts have jurisdiction under 28 U. S.C. § 13312 to determine 

"whether a tribal court has exceeded the lawful limits of its 

jurisdiction." This is because the question whether a tribal 

court has power to compel a non-Indian to submit to its 

jurisdiction "must be answered by reference to federal law and is 

a 'federal question' under § 1331." 471 U.S. at 852 (footnote 

omitted) .

3 "[I]n cases encompassing the federal question whether 

a tribal court has exceeded its lawful limits of jurisdiction 

involving 

jurisdiction 

an exercise of civil subject-matter 

. the federal district court is empowered to 

review a tribal court decision under 28 U.S. C. § 1331. 11 Superior 

Oil Co. v. United States, 798 F.2d 1324, 1329 (10th Cir. 1986). 

Sovereign immunity is a jurisdictional issue. Nero, 892 F.2d 

at 1459 n.2. However, after reviewing the proceedings before the 

tribal court, we conclude that review is not available under 

§ 1331. The tribal court did not exceed the lawful limits of its 

civil subject matter jurisdiction but rather refused to exercise 

jurisdiction. Further, there is no indication that plaintiff 

alleged any claim under the ICRA in tribal court. Thus, we are 

not presented with the question whether the ICRA waives a tribe's 

sovereign immunity in tribal court. Resolution of the sovereign 

immunity question in the tribal court was limited to deciding 

2 This section provides, "[t]he district courts shall have 

original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the 

Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States." 

3 While the Court also held that the question of tribal court 

jurisdiction must first be decided by the tribal court, 471 U.S. 

at 855, here there is no question that tribal court remedies have 

been exhausted. 

5 

Appellate Case: 92-6079 Document: 010110175774 Date Filed: 02/18/1993 Page: 5 
whether the business committee members exceeded their authority 

under tribal law. The jurisdiction issue did not arise under 

federal law. Jurisdiction under§ 1331 is not involved . 

III. Section 1343 

Plaintiff argues that the federal court had jurisdiction 

under 28 U. S.C. § 1343 because she pled a cause of action under 

42 U.S.C. § 1985 . Section 1343(a} (4 ) provides jurisdiction when a 

person alleges a claim "under any Act of Congress providing for 

the protection of civil rights . " 

Section 1985(3) , the subsection on which we presume plaintiff 

is relying, creates no independent substantive cause of action. 

Wheeler, 835 F.2d at 261. Rather, plaintiff must "point to 

independent substantive rights enforceable in the federal courts 

to state a claim under section 1985 (3} . " Id . at 262. Plaint iff 

asserts that 42 U.S . C. § 1983 applies to her. We disagree . 

[N]o action under 42 U. S . C. § 1983 can be maintained in 

federal court for persons alleging deprivation of 

constitutional rights under color of tribal 

law . . .. As the purpose of 42 U.S . C. § 1983 is to 

enforce the provisions of the fourteenth amendment, it 

follows that actions taken under color of tribal law are 

beyond the reach of§ 1983, and may only be examined in 

federal court under the provisions of the I ndian Civil 

Rights Act . 

R.J. Williams Co. v. Fort Belknap Hous . Auth. , 719 F . 2d 979, 982 

(9th Cir. 1983 ) (citations omitted}, cert. denied, 472 U.S. 1016 

(1985) . The federal c ourt did not have jurisdiction under§ 1343. 

6 

Appellate Case: 92-6079 Document: 010110175774 Date Filed: 02/18/1993 Page: 6 
The judgment of the United States District Court for the 

Western District of Oklahoma is AFFIRMED. 

Entered for the Court 

Wesley E. Brown 

Senior District Judge 

7 

Appellate Case: 92-6079 Document: 010110175774 Date Filed: 02/18/1993 Page: 7 
Appellate Case: 92-6079 Document: 010110175774 Date Filed: 02/18/1993 Page: 8