Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-00938/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-00938-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

1

17-CV-0938-AJB-KSC

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CINDY ALEGRE, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; 

DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR; 

BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS; 

RYAN ZINKE, Secretary of the 

Department of Interior, United States of 

America; MICHAEL BLACK, Acting 

Assistant Secretary of the Department of 

Interior - Indian Affairs, United States of 

America; WELDON LOUDERMILK, 

Director Bureau of Indian Affairs; AMY 

DUTSCHKE, Pacific Regional Director, 

Department of Interior - Indian Affairs, 

United States of America; JAVIN 

MOORE, Superintendent of the 

Department of Interior Indian Affairs, 

Southern California Agency; DOES 1 

through 200, inclusive, 

Defendants.

Case No.: 17-CV-0938-AJB-KSC

ORDER GRANING PLAINTIFFS’ 

MOTION FOR TEMPORARY 

RESTRAINING ORDER

(Doc. No. 6)

Case 3:17-cv-00938-AJB-KSC Document 7 Filed 05/18/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 9
2

17-CV-0938-AJB-KSC

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

Plaintiffs, collectively referred to as the Martinez Descendants, seek declaratory 

relief that their ancestors are full blood San Pasqual Indians and that all Plaintiffs have no 

less than 1/8 San Pasqual blood, thereby satisfying the Band’s enrollment criteria.

1

Currently before the Court is Plaintiffs’ ex parte request for temporary restraining order. 

(Doc. No. 6.) Plaintiffs assert they gave notice to Defendants of their intent to file the 

instant request. (Doc. No. 6-2 ¶¶ 3–4.) Having considered Plaintiffs’ arguments, and for 

the reasons set forth below, the Court GRANTS the request for temporary restraining order 

and SCHEDULES a telephonic status conference for Monday, May 22, 2017, at 3:00 p.m.

to set a briefing schedule and hearing on a motion for preliminary injunction.

BACKGROUND

This lawsuit centers on a century-old dispute over tribal identity. Plaintiffs’ 

grievances are two pronged. One issue concerns Plaintiffs’ ancestry and Defendants’ 

conduct. The other concerns the ancestry of other members of the Band.

I. Historical Background and the Trask Descendants

Plaintiffs’ dispute dates back to the late 1800s and early 1900s. After the Band was 

driven from its aboriginal land, the United States government designated land in another 

township for the Band. (Doc. No. 1 at 17.)2 Though the land was filled with rocks and had 

little or no water, it was still valuable, and squatters remained problematic. (Id. at 17–18.) 

To deal with this issue, Amos Frank, then Indian Superintendent of the Mesa Grande Tribe, 

hired a man named Frank Trask as a “police private and judge” to preserve the San Pasqual 

reserve. (Id.; Doc. No. 1-2 at 24–25.) Frank Trask was the son of Rosewell Trask, a white 

man, and Mattiana Martha Warner Trask, a Mexican woman. (Doc. No. 1 at 17.) Frank 

Trask married Lenora LaChappa, a Mesa Grande Indian woman. (Id.) Accordingly, while 

 

1 This is a companion case to 16-CV-2442. All citations are to the docket filings in the 

instant matter unless otherwise noted.

2 The Court cites to the blue CM/ECF-generated docket and page numbers located at the 

top of each page.

Case 3:17-cv-00938-AJB-KSC Document 7 Filed 05/18/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 9
3

17-CV-0938-AJB-KSC

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

Trask descendants have some Indian blood, Plaintiffs allege they have no San Pasqual

Indian blood.3

Amos Frank relocated Frank Trask and his family onto the San Pasqual reserve in 

1910. (Id. at 18; see Doc. No. 1-15.) Though Frank Trask’s employment ended within a 

year, the Trask family remained on the land as squatters for the next 40 years and prevented 

the Band from coming onto the reservation. (Doc. No. 1 at 18–19; Doc. No. 1-2 at 25.) 

In the 1950s, the Band started to formally organize itself. (Doc. No. 1-2 at 25.) The 

Band worked with anthropologist Dr. Florence Shipek to assemble the documentation 

necessary to establish Band membership. (Id.) Dr. Shipek worked with the Band’s 

Enrollment Committee, which was then comprised mainly of members who were 

unquestionably of San Pasqual descent. (Id.) However, it also included two members not 

of San Pasqual descent, including Florence Wolf Trask, the daughter of Frank and Lenora 

Trask. (Doc. No. 1 at 17; Doc. No. 1-2 at 25–26.)

In or around 1959, the Band approved an enrollment statute, which required that 

persons seeking enrollment in the Band must possess no less than 1/8 blood of the Band. 

(Doc. No. 1 at 21; see Doc. No. 1-19.) Following the Band’s approval of the proposed 

regulation, and unbeknownst to the Band, the rule that was ultimately codified and 

published at 25 C.F.R. § 48 on March 2, 1960, differed in a significant respect from that 

which the Band approved. (Doc. No. 1 at 21–22; Doc. No. 1-2 at 26–27.) The added 

section, codified at 25 C.F.R. § 48.5(f), read in pertinent part as follows:

A person who meets the requirements of paragraph (a), (b), or (c) of this 

section, but whose name has been carried on the census roll of another 

reservation shall be declared ineligible for enrollment unless he can establish 

 

3

In 1955, the California state legislature held hearings regarding the California Indians, at 

which Pacific Regional Director Leonard Hill testified that the Trask family is not of San 

Pasqual descent and could not deprive the Band of its patented land. (Doc. No. 1 at 19–

20.) Hill echoed this thought in 1966: “The [BIA] is aware that the members of the only 

family which has occupied the reservation for many years are not members of the San 

Pasqual Band.” (Doc. No. 1-2 at 30–31.)

Case 3:17-cv-00938-AJB-KSC Document 7 Filed 05/18/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 9
4

17-CV-0938-AJB-KSC

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

that he has been affiliated with the San Pasqual Band for a continuous period 

of at least one year immediately prior to January 1, 1959, evidenced by 

residence on the reservation or through active participation in tribal affairs 

such as attendance at tribal meetings, and being permitted to vote on matters 

relating to the San Pasqual Reservation. 

(Doc. No. 6-11 at 3–4; see Doc. No. 1-2 at 26–27.)

After 25 C.F.R. § 48 was published, the Enrollment Committee recommended that 

several Trask Descendants be denied enrollment. (Doc. No. 1 at 22.) However, the BIA 

found the Trask Descendants were eligible for enrollment. (Id.) In 1966, the BIA had 

prepared and approved the Tribal Membership Roll of the Band, which included several 

non-San Pasqual people due to § 48.5(f) and a secretarial construction of the phrase “blood 

of the Band” as used in the C.F.R. to mean “total Indian blood of a person named on the 

basic membership Roll dated June 30, 1910.” (Id.; Doc. No. 1-2 at 23–24.) The Band 

objected to the use of the 1910 census because it included Frank and Lenora’s children, 

even though Lenora and her parents were listed on multiple census rolls for the Mesa 

Grande Tribe. (Doc. No. 1-2 at 26, 29.) These actions and interpretations resulted in the 

admission of Trask Descendants to the Band. (Id. at 28–30.)

II. Plaintiffs’ Denial of Enrollment in the 2000s

Plaintiffs are the descendants of Jose Juan Martinez, Guadalupe Martinez, and their 

daughter Modesta Martinez Contreras. (Doc. No. 1 at 9.) On September 12, 2005, the 

Band’s Tribal Counsel and Enrollment Committee approved Plaintiffs for enrollment in 

the Band. (Id. at 10; Case No. 16-CV-2442, Doc. No. 13-3 at 14–15, see Doc. No. 13-10.) 

Ten days later, the Enrollment Committee submitted a letter to Superintendent James 

Fletcher of the Bureau of Indian Affairs (“BIA”), requesting that the BIA correct Modesta 

Martinez Contreras’s blood degree from 3/4 to 4/4 degree San Pasqual blood. (Doc. No. 1

at 10–11.)4

 

4 The Enrollment Committee now is not comprised of the same individuals as the 

Committee that approved Plaintiffs’ enrollment applications. Plaintiffs allege that in or 

Case 3:17-cv-00938-AJB-KSC Document 7 Filed 05/18/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 9
5

17-CV-0938-AJB-KSC

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

The BIA did not respond to this letter until December 8, 2005. (Id. at 11.) In its 

response, the BIA stated “the preponderance of the evidence does not sufficiently 

demonstrate that Modesta (Martinez) Contreras is full blood.” (Id.; Doc. No. 1-10 at 3.) 

The letter was sent only to the Pacific Regional Director, Amy Dutschke. (Doc. No. 1 at 

12; Doc. No. 1-10 at 2.) Plaintiffs and the Tribe were not sent the letter. (Doc. No. 1 at 12.) 

On January 31, 2006, Dutschke concurred with the BIA that Contreras was not a full blood 

San Pasqual Indian. (Id.) 25 C.F.R. § 48.9 required Dutschke to provide Plaintiffs with 

notification of this determination, but she did not. (Id. at 12–13.) Plaintiffs assert that 

between 2005 and the present, they were never provided written notice of the BIA’s and 

Dutschke’s determination. (Id. at 13; Case No. 16-CV-2442, Doc. No. 13-3 at 18–19.)

On or about October 1, 2014, Plaintiffs filed a request pursuant to the Freedom of 

Information Act to ascertain the status of their applications. Sometime between December 

8, 2014, and January 1, 2015, in response to the FOIA request, the letter of denial dated 

April 7, 2006, was finally produced to Plaintiffs. (Doc. No. 1 at 16.) The amended 

complaint in 16-CV-2442 deals with Defendants’ failures to provide Plaintiffs with notice 

of the denial of their applications, as well as the underlying determination that Modesta 

Martinez Contreras is not a full blood San Pasqual Indian.

III. Present Day Issues Between Trask Descendants and Plaintiffs 

Presently, there are several Trask Descendants in positions of power within the 

Band, including the Enrollment Committee. (Id. at 23.) Plaintiffs’ filing of the complaint 

in 16-CV-2442 has only exacerbated tensions between the Trask Descendants and 

Plaintiffs. On April 9, 2017, a General Council meeting took place on the reservation where 

the Trask Descendants moved to implement a moratorium on enrollment until a new 

enrollment ordinance can be put in place. (Doc. No. 1 at 24; Doc. No. 1-2 at 36–37; Doc. 

 

around January 2006, the Trask Descendants “wrongfully dismissed the Constitutionally 

installed Enrollment Committee[] and installed an illegal Enrollment Committee,” which 

Trask Descendants now head. (Case No. 16-CV-2442, Doc. No. 13-3 at 23.)

Case 3:17-cv-00938-AJB-KSC Document 7 Filed 05/18/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 9
6

17-CV-0938-AJB-KSC

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

No. 6-5 ¶¶ 2, 5.) Plaintiffs assert the new ordinance will remove federal government 

oversight of the enrollment process. (Doc. No. 1-2 at 34.) Plaintiffs fear that if this occurs, 

the Trask Descendants can take action to deny Plaintiffs enrollment and/or disenroll those 

already enrolled in the Tribe.5(Id. at 34, 37.) Should such occur, Plaintiffs will have no 

recourse with the U.S. government or the courts. (Id.)

On May 8, 2017, Plaintiffs instituted the instant action, seeking injunctive relief to 

prevent Defendants from taking any action to approve any proposed changes to the San 

Pasqual Constitution and/or enrollment procedures. (Doc. No. 1; Doc. No. 1-2 at 32.)

Plaintiffs filed the instant ex parte request for temporary restraining order (“TRO”) on May 

16, 2017. (Doc. No. 6.)

LEGAL STANDARD

A temporary restraining order is a form of preliminary injunctive relief. Its sole 

purpose is to preserve the status quo pending hearing on the moving party’s application for 

a preliminary injunction. Granny Goose Foods, Inc. v. Bd. of Teamsters & Auto Truck 

Drivers Local No. 7, 415 U.S. 423, 439 (1974); Guajardo v. Mukasey, No. C 08-1929 PJH, 

2008 WL 1734517, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 11, 2008). “Status quo” means “the last 

uncontested status which preceded the pending controversy.” GoTo.com, Inc. v. Walt 

Disney Co., 202 F.3d 1199, 1210 (9th Cir. 2000) (quoting Tanner Motor Livery, Ltd. v. 

Avis, Inc., 316 F.2d 804, 809 (9th Cir. 1963)).

A preliminary injunction is an “extraordinary remedy” and is “never awarded as of 

right.” Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 24 (2008) (citing Munaf v. 

Geren, 553 U.S. 674, 689–90 (2008)). To obtain this relief, the moving party bears the 

burden of demonstrating four factors: (1) likelihood of success on the merits, (2) likelihood 

of irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief; (3) the balance of equities tips in 

 

5 Twenty-two of Plaintiffs’ cousins, who were also approved for enrollment by the Tribe 

on April 22, 2005, were enrolled in the Tribe. (Case. No. 16-CV-2442, Doc. No. 13-3 at 

21.)

Case 3:17-cv-00938-AJB-KSC Document 7 Filed 05/18/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 6 of 9
7

17-CV-0938-AJB-KSC

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

the moving party’s favor; and (4) “an injunction is in the public interest.” Id. at 20.

Although a plaintiff must satisfy all four of the Winter requirements, the Ninth 

Circuit employs a sliding scale whereby “the elements of the preliminary injunction test 

are balanced, so that a stronger showing of one element may offset a weaker showing of 

another.” Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127, 1131 (9th Cir. 2011). 

Accordingly, if the moving party can demonstrate the requisite likelihood of irreparable 

harm and show that an injunction is in the public interest, a TRO may issue so long as there 

are serious questions going to the merits and the balance of hardships tips sharply in the 

moving party’s favor. Id.

DISCUSSION

In this case, Plaintiffs contend they will be irreparably harmed if Defendants take 

action to affirm any proposed changes to the Band’s Constitution and enrollment criteria. 

Should Defendants do so, federal government review of enrollment into, and disenrollment 

from, the Band will be removed. This would leave the Martinez Descendants with no 

recourse should they be improperly disenrolled from, or improperly blocked from enrolling 

in, the Band. This is sufficient to establish a likelihood of irreparable harm. Alto v. Salazar, 

No. 11cv2276-IEG (BLM), 2011 WL 4591944, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 4, 2011) (finding 

plaintiffs alleged they would be “irreparably harmed if the San Pasqual Tribe is allowed to 

amend the Tribe’s Constitution without their participation” because it would result in them 

“forever [being] precluded from enrollment, irrespective of their lineage and the proof 

provided”).

For this reason, Plaintiffs have established that the balance of hardships tips sharply 

in their favor, at least at this stage of the litigation. If the Court does not grant a TRO, 

Plaintiffs may forever face preclusion from enrollment. On the other hand, any harm to 

Defendants or the Band is negligible. If Defendants ultimately prevail on this action and 

its companion case, Defendants can then affirm, should they choose to, any changes to the 

Band’s Constitution and enrollment procedures that the Band promulgates.

//

Case 3:17-cv-00938-AJB-KSC Document 7 Filed 05/18/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 7 of 9
8

17-CV-0938-AJB-KSC

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

Furthermore, Plaintiffs have demonstrated that, at the very least, there are serious 

questions going to the merits. For example, Plaintiffs allege Defendants failed to follow 

the procedures set forth in 25 C.F.R. § 48.9, which required them to provide Plaintiffs with 

written notice of the enrollment denial within thirty days. (Doc. No. 1 at 12–13.) Without 

such notice, Plaintiffs contend they were denied due process of law, as they could not 

appeal a denial about which they were unaware. Plaintiffs further contend they were 

deprived of their property interest in federal housing grants and education and per capita 

payments, among other things. (Case. No. 16-CV-2442, Doc. No. 13-3 at 22, Doc. No. 13-

4 at 44.) See Parks v. Watson, 716 F.2d 646, 656 (9th Cir. 1983).

Plaintiffs also allege they have documentation establishing that their ancestors are 

full blood San Pasqual Indians, which they allege the BIA arbitrarily disregarded in 

denying their applications. (Case No. 16-CV-2442, Doc. No. 13-3 at 2–4.) The Court finds 

these contentions sufficient to create serious questions going to the merits of Plaintiffs’ 

claims. Alto, 2011 WL 4591944, at *2 (finding serious questions going to the merits existed 

where plaintiffs alleged that Assistant Secretary Hawk “failed to consider all of the relevant 

factors, ignored some factors while giving substantial weigh[t] to others, and failed to 

articulate a rational connection between the facts found and the conclusions made” (citing 

Latino Issues Forum v. U.S. E.P.A., 558 F.3d 936, 941 (9th Cir. 2009); Envtl. Def. Ctr., 

Inc. v. U.S. E.P.A., 344 F.3d 832, 858 n.36 (9th Cir. 2003))).

Finally, there does not appear to be any “critical public interest” that would be 

injured by granting a TRO and setting the case for a hearing on whether a preliminary 

injunction should be granted. See Alliance for the Wild Rockies, 632 F.3d at 1138; Alto, 

2011 WL 4591944, at *2.

CONCLUSION

In sum, because Plaintiffs have demonstrated they are likely to be irreparably 

harmed if a TRO is not issued and the balance of hardships tips sharply in their favor, and 

because there are serious questions going to the merits of Plaintiffs’ claims, the Court 

GRANTS their request for temporary restraining order. Defendants are hereby 

Case 3:17-cv-00938-AJB-KSC Document 7 Filed 05/18/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 8 of 9
9

17-CV-0938-AJB-KSC

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

RESTRAINED and ENJOINED from taking any action to affirm any proposed changes 

to the San Pasqual Band’s Constitution and/or enrollment criteria and/or procedures until 

the Court rules on the propriety of a preliminary injunction. Plaintiff’s counsel is 

ORDERED to serve a copy of the request for TRO and this order on Defendants forthwith.

Furthermore, the Court sets a telephonic status conference on Monday, May 22, 

2017, at 3:00 p.m. to discuss a briefing schedule and hearing on a motion for preliminary 

injunction. Plaintiff’s counsel is ORDERED to contact Defendants and coordinate the 

conference call. Plaintiff’s counsel must email the call-in information to the Court at 

efile_battaglia@casd.uscourts.gov no later than 5:00 p.m. on Friday, May 19, 2017.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 18, 2017

Case 3:17-cv-00938-AJB-KSC Document 7 Filed 05/18/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 9 of 9