Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_07-cv-08025/USCOURTS-azd-3_07-cv-08025-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 950
Nature of Suit: Constitutionality of State Statutes
Cause of Action: 28:2201 Constitutionality of State Statute(s)

---

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

Richard Leland Neal, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

State of Arizona, et al.,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CIV 07-8025-PCT-SMM

TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff Richard Leland Neal’s (“Plaintiff”) Ex Parte

Motion for an Immediate Hearing on Plaintiff’s Temporary Restraining Order (Dkt. 8) and

Motion for Temporary Restraining Order (Dkt. 3). 

BACKGROUND

 This action arises out of a traffic stop occurring in Kingman, Arizona on March 9,

2007. An officer of the City of Kingman’s Police Department issued Plaintiff tickets for: (1)

driving on a suspended license and (2) failure to yield to a traffic control device. (Dkt. 1, Ex.

1) Plaintiff’s car was impounded and subsequently stored in the Great West Tow Yard for

at least one month. (Dkt. 1, Ex. 2) Plaintiff, a proclaimed member of the Pembina Nation

Little Shell Ban of North America (“Pembina Nation”), seeks to enjoin the state from

enforcing its motor vehicle licensing, registration and titling requirements against him.

According to Plaintiff, the state should extend reciprocity privileges to vehicle registrations

and driver’s licenses issued by the Pembina Nation since “it stands without question ... that

Case 3:07-cv-08025-SMM Document 9 Filed 06/27/07 Page 1 of 5
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 -

the Pembina Nation Little Shell Tribe exists and is recognized as having the full respect

required in any government-to-government relationship....” (Dkt. 4, ¶ 14) Plaintiff alleges

that he has a valid driver’s license issued under the Pembina Nation Transportation Code

(“PNTC”), but the state refuses to recognize the legitimacy of his license or the PNTC.

On June 1, 2007, Plaintiff filed a Complaint, a Motion for Preliminary Injunction, a

Motion for Temporary Restraining Order, and a Request for Judicial Notice. (respectively,

Dkts. 1, 2, 3, 5) Plaintiff filed a Notice of Removal on June 8, 2007 (Dkt. 6) and an Ex Parte

Motion for Immediate Hearing on Plaintiff’s Temporary Restraining Order (Dkt. 8). A

summons was issued to the named defendants on June 6, 2007; however, Plaintiff, appearing

pro se, has not provided formal or informal proof of service or certified to the court in

writing the efforts which have been made to give notice. 

STANDARD OF REVIEW

The purpose of a temporary restraining order is to preserve the status quo pending a

fuller hearing. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 65; Chalk v. U.S. Dist. Court, 840 F.2d 701, 705 (9th Cir.

1988); Regents of the University of California v. A.B.C., Inc., 747 F.2d 511, 515 (9th Cir.

1984). While Rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure establishes the procedural

requirements for obtaining a temporary restraining order, the substantive requirements for

injunctions are defined by applicable federal case law and statutes. 

To qualify for a temporary restraining order, the moving party must demonstrate either

(1) a probability of success on the merits and the possibility of irreparable harm, or (2) that

the lawsuit raises serious questions and the balance of hardship tips sharply in the movant's

favor. Hoopa Valley Tribe v. Christie, 812 F.2d 1097, 1102 (9th Cir. 1986). These two

formulations "are not separate tests but the outer reaches of single continuum." Regents of

Univ. of Cal., 747 F.2d at 515. "Essentially, the ...court must balance the equities in the

exercise of its discretion." Id. 

DISCUSSION

The Court has considered the Verified Complaint in this action, the memorandum of

law in support of Plaintiff's Motion, and the supporting documentation.

Case 3:07-cv-08025-SMM Document 9 Filed 06/27/07 Page 2 of 5
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 -

A. Motion for an Immediate Hearing on Plaintiff’s Temporary Restraining Order

Pursuant to Rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a temporary restraining

order may be granted without written or oral notice to the adverse party or that party’s

attorney only if:

 (1) it clearly appears from the specific facts shown by affidavit or by the verified

complaint that immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or damage will result to the

applicant before the adverse party or that party’s attorney can be heard in opposition,

and 

(2) the applicant’s attorney certifies to the court in writing the efforts, if any, which

have been made to give the notice and the reasons supporting the claim that notice

should not be required.

 In the present case, the Court finds that it is not clearly apparent that an immediate

and irreparable injury, loss or damage will result before the adverse parties or their attorneys

can be heard in opposition. Plaintiff’s asserted injuries are: (1) loss of property, (2) loss of

revenue, (3) loss of time spent not servicing other business opportunities, (4) emotional

distress, loss of reputation, and mental anguish, (5) loss of freedom to travel, and (6) loss of

freedom. According to Plaintiff, Pembina tribal members must frequently travel to Arizona

to conduct business, obtain auto repairs, receive medical services and shop for products

unavailable elsewhere. (Dkt. 1, ¶ 56). Plaintiff contends that because Pembina tribal

members cannot comply with both tribal and state licensing and registration requirements,

they will be unable to travel in Arizona without renting a vehicle or breaking the state’s laws.

Plaintiff’s alleged injuries, however, are not clearly apparent based upon the materials

submitted to the Court. Plaintiff cites certain provisions of the Pembina Nation

Transportation Code, yet he has not presented any evidence apart from these citations that

such a Code exists. Plaintiff has not provided a copy of a Pembina Nation driver license, or

motor vehicle registration, nor has he provided the Court with any way to access the Code

to confirm its existence. Without any evidence that a Pembina Nation Transportation Code

exists, verification of tribal enrollment or proof that Plaintiff or any other member of the

Pembina Nation is licensed or registered under the Code, it is not clearly apparent to the

Court that an immediate or irreparable injury, loss or damage may result before notice can

Case 3:07-cv-08025-SMM Document 9 Filed 06/27/07 Page 3 of 5
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 -

be provided to the adverse party. In addition, Plaintiff has not certified to the court in writing

the efforts which have been made to give notice to the adverse parties and the reasons

supporting the claim that notice should not be required. Therefore, because Plaintiff has not

satisfied the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b), the Court will deny Ex Parte Motion for

an Immediate Hearing on Plaintiff’s Temporary Restraining Order.

 B. Motion for Temporary Restraining Order

Plaintiff moves the Court to issue a temporary restraining order and preliminary

injunction to enjoin the State of Arizona, Robert Devries, Rochelle Silva, Tom Sheahan,

Roger Vanderpool, Victor M. Mendiz, and the City of Kingman (collectively "Defendants")

from enforcing Arizona's motor vehicle licensing, registration and titling laws in a manner

that prohibits or impairs the use of the Pembina Nation’s Transportation Code (“PNTC”) in

Arizona until the constitutionality and federal preemption of such state laws are adjudicated.

To qualify for a temporary restraining order, the moving party must demonstrate either

(1) a probability of success on the merits and the possibility of irreparable harm, or (2) that

the lawsuit raises serious questions and the balance of hardship tips sharply in the movant's

favor. Hoopa Valley Tribe v. Christie, 812 F.2d 1097, 1102 (9th Cir. 1986). These two

formulations "are not separate tests but the outer reaches of single continuum." Regents of

Univ. of Cal., 747 F.2d at 515. "Essentially, the ...court must balance the equities in the

exercise of its discretion." Id. 

The Court finds that Plaintiff does not qualify for a temporary restraining order

because he has not demonstrated a probability of success on the merits or that this lawsuit

raises serious questions. As Plaintiff repeatedly emphasizes in his filings, Indian tribes

possess the sovereign authority to license and register tribal vehicles. Prairie Band

Potawatomi Nation v. Wagnon, 476 F.3d 818, 823 (10th Cir. 2007); Red Lake Band of

Chippewa Indians v. Minnesota, 311 Minn. 241, 248 N.W.2d 722, 725 (1976); see also

Queets Band of Indians v. Washington, 765 F.2d 1399, 1403 (9th Cir. 1985) (Indian tribes

possess the sovereign authority to license and register tribal vehicles.”), vacated as moot, 783

F.2d 154 (9th Cir. 1986). The Court agrees with this assertion; however, all of the cited

Case 3:07-cv-08025-SMM Document 9 Filed 06/27/07 Page 4 of 5
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

- 5 -

authority involves federally recognized groups with licensing and registration systems and

areas of land designated as reservations. This case involves a member of an unrecognized

band, as opposed to a tribe, traveling on state land. The Pembina Nation, the entity whose

authority to promulgate a license and registration system is at issue in this case, is not a

federally recognized tribe. Delorme v. United States, 354 F.3d 810, 814 (8th Cir. 2004)

(stating that the Little Shell Pembina Band of North America is a federally unrecognized

band located in North Dakota). Moreover, the Bureau of Indian Affairs does not recognize

the Pembina Nation as an entity eligible to receive services. See Indian Entities Recognized

and Eligible to Receive Services from the United States Bureau of Indian Affairs, 72 Fed.

Reg. 13647 (Mar. 22, 2007). Without federal recognition a tribe has no legal relationship

with the federal government and lacks the federally sanctioned authority to function legally

and politically. Although the Court does not doubt the existence of the Pembina Nation,

Plaintiff has provided no evidence to show that the Pembina Nation is a self-governing entity

with an established motor vehicle licensing and registration system. In addition, since it is

an unrecognized band, the case law Plaintiff relies upon is distinguishable since those cases

all involved federally recognized groups. Therefore, without any evidence that the Pembina

Nation is vested with the authority to function as a sovereign entity and that it has, in fact,

established a motor vehicle licensing and registration system, the Court will not issue a

temporary restraining order.

CONCLUSION

Accordingly, for the reasons set forth above, 

IT IS ORDERED DENYING Plaintiff’s Ex Parte Motion for an Immediate Hearing

on Plaintiff’s Temporary Restraining Order (Dkt. 8). 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED DENYING Plaintiff’s Motion for Temporary

Restraining Order. (Dkt. 3)

DATED this 25th day of June, 2007.

Case 3:07-cv-08025-SMM Document 9 Filed 06/27/07 Page 5 of 5