Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_06-cv-00866/USCOURTS-azd-3_06-cv-00866-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Dora Dean Mike
Plaintiff
Office of Navajo and Hopi Indian Relocation
Defendant

Document Text:

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 NN

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Dora Dean Mike, Deceased, 

by Larry Mike, 

Plaintiff, 

v.

Office of Navajo and Hopi Indian

Relocation, an administrative agency of

the United States,

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 06-0866-PCT-EHC

ORDER

INTRODUCTION

Before the Court are two Cross Motions for Summary Judgment. (Dkts. 15, 24).

Plaintiff seeks relief from a denial of relocation assistance benefits by the Office of Navajo

and Hopi Indian Relocation (“ONHIR”), an administrative agency of the United States. The

Commissioner of the ONHIR seeks affirmation of its final decision.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

A court should grant summary judgment when there is no genuine issue of material

fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c).

Under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), “a court reviews the challenged agency

action under a narrow and deferential standard to determine whether such action was

arbitrary and capricious.” Bark v. U.S. Forest Service, No. CV 04-356 MO, 2007 WL

756746 (D.Or. Mar. 3, 2007) (citing 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A)). A reviewing court may set aside

agency action that is unsupported by substantial evidence, is arbitrary, capricious or contrary

to law. 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A), 2(E). See Bedoni v. Navajo-Hopi Indian Relocation

Commission, 878 F.2d 1119, 1122 (9th Cir. 1989). Substantial evidence means “such

Case 3:06-cv-00866-EHC Document 31 Filed 01/03/08 Page 1 of 11
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 -

relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.”

Information Providers’ Coalition for Defense of the First Amendment v. FCC, 928 F.2d 866,

870 (9th Cir. 1991). When reviewing an agency’s decision under an arbitrary and capricious

standard, the Court must determine whether the agency’s decision was based on

consideration of relevant factors and whether there has been a clear error of judgment.

Northwest Motorcycle Association v. U.S. Department of Agriculture, 18 F.2d 1468, 1471

(9th Cir. 1994).

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

The ONHIR was created by Congress to carry out the relocation of members of the

Navajo and Hopi Tribes who live in the Federal Joint Use Area (“FJUA”), disputed land that

was eventually partitioned for each tribe. (Dkt. 1, Complaint for Judicial Review

(“Complaint”) ¶ 4; Dkt. 10, Answer ¶ 4). The ONHIR was also designated to provide

relocation assistance benefits for all households who moved off of land designated to the

other tribe pursuant to the Navajo-Hopi Settlement Act (“the Act”). (Complaint ¶ 4; Answer

¶ 4). Plaintiff Dora Dean Mike (“Dora”) was an enrolled member of the Navajo Nation and

resided on the FJUA. (Complaint ¶ 3; Answer ¶ 3).

One of the Act’s regulations provided for relocation assistance benefits to those who

were residents of the FJUA “but moved from there between December 22, 1974, and August

30, 1978.” C.F.R. § 700.147(a)(2) (1983). The regulation was in effect from March 9, 1979,

to June 28, 1984, the period during which applicants could file for benefits. (Complaint, Ex.

1).

Dora applied for relocation assistance benefits on March 6, 1980. (Dkt. 26,

Defendant’s Statement of Facts (“DSOF”) ¶ 1; Dkt. 29, Plaintiff’s Reply to Defendant’s

Statement of Facts (“PRSOF”) ¶ 1). She was denied benefits on March 12, 1985, because

she did not respond to the ONHIR’s four requests for additional supporting documents.

(DSOF ¶¶ 2-3; PRSOF ¶¶ 2-3).

Dora died of cancer on July 22, 1987. (DSOF ¶ 4; PRSOF ¶ 4).

Case 3:06-cv-00866-EHC Document 31 Filed 01/03/08 Page 2 of 11
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 -

On June 5, 1990, the ONHIR determined that Dora was eligible to submit an appeal

of the denial, and on June 27, 1996, Plaintiff’s counsel and the ONHIR stipulated that

Plaintiff’s husband, Larry Mike (“Larry”), could pursue the appeal on Dora’s behalf. (DSOF

¶¶ 5, 7; PRSOF ¶¶ 5, 7). Plaintiff’s appeal was heard on September 21, 1999. (DSOF ¶ 8;

PRSOF ¶ 8). 

The decision of denial was issued on November 17, 1999. (DSOF ¶ 36; PRSOF ¶ 36).

The Hearing Officer found that Dora had moved from the FJUA before the Act was passed

on December 22, 1974; thus, she did not “move pursuant to the Act.” The issue before the

Court is whether the Hearing Officer’s decision was arbitrary, unsupported by substantial

evidence, or contrary to law, and as a result, a clear error of judgment. 

BACKGROUND

Dora and Larry started dating in high school, a boarding school in Wingate, New

Mexico. (DSOF ¶¶ 10-11; PRSOF ¶¶ 10-11). Dora’s family lived in Jeddito, Arizona, and

Larry’s family lived in Rock Springs, New Mexico. (DSOF ¶ 12; PRSOF ¶ 12). When Larry

graduated in 1972, he went to a California school for automotive training and Dora remained

in New Mexico to finish high school. (DSOF ¶ 14, 16; PRSOF ¶ 14, 16). 

Dora graduated from high school in 1973, began working at a hardware store in

Gallup, New Mexico, and obtained a New Mexico driver’s license. (DSOF ¶¶ 16-17; PRSOF

¶¶ 16-17). In July of 1973, Dora and Larry married in her Arizona hometown of Jeddito and

obtained a Marriage License and Certificate from the Navajo Nation. (DSOF ¶¶ 18, 21;

PRSOF ¶¶ 18, 21). 

Larry had planned to build a home in Jeddito, Dora’s parents’ ancestral home, in

accordance with Navajo tradition. (PSOF ¶ 17). Dora’s parents owned a two-room frame

house, sheep and horse corrals, a ramada and a hogan in Jeddito. (PSOF ¶ 21). Dora owned

two of the horses personally. (PSOF ¶ 13).

Larry and his mother, Nellie Mike (“Nellie”), testified that at the traditional,

matrimonial ceremony, the family elders advised the couple that, although it was tradition

Case 3:06-cv-00866-EHC Document 31 Filed 01/03/08 Page 3 of 11
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 establish themselves in Jeddito, they would have to live elsewhere because the land dispute

with the Hopis prevented new construction. (DSOF ¶ 19; PRSOF ¶ 19).

Two weeks after the wedding, Dora and Larry moved in with Larry’s mother in Rock

Springs; Dora left one of her horses in Jeddito and took the other to Rock Springs. The

couple and Nelli lived together in Nellie’s home for approximately one year. (DSOF ¶¶ 20,

27; PRSOF ¶¶ 20, 27). After that, in 1974, Nellie moved to Gallup; Dora and Larry

continued to live in Nellie’s home in Rock Springs.. 

Nellie passed ownership of her house to Larry, and a point of contention between the

parties is when that occurred. According to the ONHIR, Nellie told her son, before she

moved to Gallup, that he could remodel the Rock Springs home and remain there; this would

signify that Larry and Dora inherited the home before December 22, 1974. (DSOF ¶ 27).

Both Larry and Nellie testified that she expressed this to her son after she had moved to

Gallup, but before she returned to Rock Springs in 1978, signifying the liklihood that Larry

inherited the home after December 22, 1974. (PRSOF ¶ 27). Larry remodeled the Rock

Springs home for his family in 1978. (PSOF ¶ 24).

Larry further testified that he and Dora returned to Jeddito almost every weekend and

on vacations. (DSOF ¶ 26; PRSOF ¶ 26). They viewed their stay in Rock Springs as a

temporary employment arrangement; Dora always wanted to return to Jeddito permanently.

(PSOF ¶ 19). After five years of waiting for the land dispute to be resolved so they could

build their own home in Jeddito, Dora and Larry decided to make Rock Springs their

permanent home in June 1978. (PSOF ¶ 23). Consequently, Dora, a member of the Navajo

Nation Jeddito Chapter, changed her voter registration to the Rock Springs Chapter on July

10, 1978. (PSOF ¶ 23). Defendant argues that the couple made Rock Springs their

permanent residence after the wedding in 1973. (Dkt. 25, p.2).

Larry finished remodeling the Rock Springs home around 1978, and he and Dora lived

there from 1973 until 1986, when Dora became ill. (DSOF ¶¶ 28, 30; PRSOF ¶¶ 28, 30).

During that time, they filed taxes, did their banking, and worked in Gallup. (DSOF ¶¶ 25, 29,

31-32; PRSOF ¶¶ 25, 29, 31-32). Both of their children were born in Gallup, and the older

Case 3:06-cv-00866-EHC Document 31 Filed 01/03/08 Page 4 of 11
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 -

child, Vincent, testified that he grew up and attended school in Gallup. (DSOF ¶¶ 33-34;

PRSOF ¶¶ 33-34). Vincent did, however, return to Jeddito with his parents on weekends,

and also spent every summer there throughout elementary school. (PSOF ¶ 25).

When Dora was diagnosed with cancer in 1986, she moved back to Jeddito where she

died a year later. (PSOF ¶ 26).

DISCUSSION

To qualify for relocation assistance benefits, the applicant must meet three

requirements: 1) the application must have been filed between March 9, 1979 and June 28,

1984; 2) the applicant must have been a resident of the area partitioned to the tribe of which

she was not a member, a resident of the FJUA but from where she had moved away between

December 22, 1974, and August 30, 1978, or a resident of an area partitioned to the tribe of

which she was not a member but from where she moved away after August 30, 1978; and 3)

the applicant is a head of household. (Dkt. 13, p. 3).

There is no dispute that Dora met the first and third requirements. There is also no

disagreement that Dora was a resident of the FJUA. The sole issue is whether she moved

away from the FJUA between December 22, 1974, and August 30, 1978. The ONHIR argues

that Dora moved from the FJUA in 1973; Plaintiff asserts that Dora established legal

residency in July of 1978.

I. Hearing Officer’s Findings of Fact

The Hearing Officer for the ONHIR affirmed the denial of benefits finding that:

A. Dora spent Thanksgiving and Christmas of 1972 in Rock Springs.

B. Larry intended to work in Gallup after finishing his training in California.

C. Dora moved to Rock Springs almost immediately after high school graduation,

and held several jobs in Gallup between 1973 and 1986.

D. After their Jeddito wedding, the couple spent only one night in Jeddito.

E. Nellie eventually gave her Rock Springs home to the couple, which Larry

remodeled.

F. Dora and Larry periodically returned to Jeddito on a weekend.

G. The couple both had New Mexico driver’s licenses and bank accounts.

Case 3:06-cv-00866-EHC Document 31 Filed 01/03/08 Page 5 of 11
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

- 6 -

H. There was no evidence that Larry ever built a traditional marital home for Dora

in Rock Springs or anywhere else. 

(DSOF ¶ 38). As a preliminary matter, the Court finds that reasons A and D are irrelevant

to the issue before the Court.

A voter registration card was introduced at the hearing as evidence that Dora officially

moved to Rock Springs when she registered to vote there on July 10, 1978. However,

although it was signed by a Registration Officer, Dora had not signed or dated the document.

Consequently, the Hearing Officer rejected the card and did not make it a part of the record.

(DSOF ¶ 35; PRSOF ¶ 35). 

II. Hearing Officer’s Conclusions of Law

The Hearing Officer concluded that:

A. As of December 22, 1974, Dora was not a legal resident of the Jeddito Chapter

because she had resided in Rock Springs, New Mexico, since she graduated

from high school; here children were born and raised in Rock Springs; she was

employed in Gallup, New Mexico; and she visited the Jeddito area primarily

for social reasons and assisting her family.

B. Alternatively, if Dora maintained her legal residency in Jeddito, her move from

there was not “pursuant to the Act” since her circumstances did not change

except to transfer her voter registration from Jeddito to Rock Springs in 1978.

C. Dora did not move “pursuant to the Act” before December 22, 1974, because

the Act had not yet passed, and such move was for purposes other than in

response to the Act.

D. Therefore, Plaintiff is not entitled to relocation benefits.

(Administrative Record (“AR”), pp. 158-59).

III. Legal Residence

The ONHIR published a Plan Update in 1990 which defines residency for the purpose

of relocation benefits. (Dkt. 13, pp. 4-6). It rejected “actual occupancy” as a requirement and

instead chose “legal residency” as the operative definition. (Dkt. 13, Ex. 3). Legal residency

is, according to the ONHIR, 

where a person might be temporarily away, but maintained substantial,

recurring contact with an identifiable homesite. This interpretation considered

the fact that many persons would leave the partitioned lands temporarily to

seek employment, job training, or other opportunities. Yet, they maintained

strong ties to their homes and community and considered themselves residents.

Case 3:06-cv-00866-EHC Document 31 Filed 01/03/08 Page 6 of 11
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

- 7 -

Id. (emphasis added). The agency justified its choice of definition as follows:

[T]he definition of legal residency best met both legal requirements and

circumstances of life on the partitioned lands. By reflecting the cultural

traditions and economic realities of the people affected by relocation, this

interpretation fulfilled the intent of Congress to provide for a thorough and

generous program.

Id.

1. Employment and the economic realities of life on the reservation

The purposes of education and employment are valid reasons for being “temporarily

away” from a legal residence. (Dkt. 13, Ex. 4). The Hearing Officer cites Dora’s

employment in New Mexico as support for denying the relocation benefits, even though it

is a recognized reason for being “temporarily away.” Moreover, the Hearing Officer ignores

that her high school attendance for four years at a boarding school in New Mexico was

presumably a temporary stay given Dora’s status as a minor. It is consistent with her

continued temporary stay for employment after graduation, because Jeddito offers little in

terms of employment and education. (See Dkt. 13, pp. 11-13).

The ONHIR itself acknowledges the “economic realities” of those residents who

relocate temporarily for school or work. The government does not dispute that facilities such

as banks, vehicle registration facilities, schools, and jobs are rarely accessible in Jeddito, a

phenomenon still problematic today but more so in 1973. (See Dkt. 13, pp. 12-13). 

Larry testified that he intended to work in New Mexico after finishing school in

California because there was no work for him in Jeddito.

2. Substantial contact and strong ties to the home and community

Dora also maintained substantial, recurring contact with her home in Jeddito, traveling

there almost every weekend and whenever she and Larry had time off from work. Larry,

Nellie, and Vincent all testified to that fact. Without explanation, the Hearing Officer instead

characterized the contact as periodic social visits to Jeddito. (DSOF ¶ 38).

Furthermore, according to the testimony, Dora considered herself to be a resident of

Jeddito until 1978, which parallels her strong ties and recurring contact with her parents and

Case 3:06-cv-00866-EHC Document 31 Filed 01/03/08 Page 7 of 11
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

- 8 -

their ancestral home. This is further evidenced by Dora’s decision to move back to Jeddito

for her last year of life, before dying of cancer.

3. Property ownership

The parties do not dispute that when Nellie told her son he could have the home, she

told him he could remodel the home as well. He did not do so until approximately 1978,

reflecting the likelihood that Nellie conveyed the property to Larry after she moved to

Gallup, a point of contention between the parties. Even if the property were conveyed before

1974, many married couples own property outside their location of residence. While the

timing of transfer of Nellie’s home to Larry is a factor in determining when Dora established

her legal residence in New Mexico, it is not definitive. 

4. Cultural Tradition

The ONHIR does not dispute the Navajo tradition that a newly married husband is

obligated to build a house at the ancestral homeland of his wife’s parents. The defendant

asserts, however, that the couple could not have “reasonably relied” on the advice of elders

at their wedding to live elsewhere “pursuant to the Act,” because the relocation enactment

occurred on December 22, 1974, well after the couple’s wedding. (Dkt. 25, p. 2).

It is unlikely, however, that the tension between the Navajos and Hopis was not

known to the Jeddito residents living in the partitioned lands. In fact, testimony by nearby

residents in another case demonstrates that the land dispute was public knowledge well

before the enactment and that some hogans in an area near Jeddito had been burned down by

the Hopis. (See Dkt. 30, Ex. 2). It is fair to assume that the couple’s reliance on their elders’

advice was reasonable.

The couple intended to adhere to tradition and build a home in Jeddito. They waited

five years, but the land dispute persisted and they were unable to do so. Although the

Hearing Officer found that Larry did not build a home for Dora elsewhere, it would not have

met Larry’s traditional obligation that the home be built in Jeddito. Nonetheless, Larry

substantially remodeled the Rock Springs home in 1978, after it was given to him by his

mother.

Case 3:06-cv-00866-EHC Document 31 Filed 01/03/08 Page 8 of 11
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

Although Dora’s affidavit could not be located, it is not unusual that such records are

routinely purged, not only because Dora had died, but because Larry’s request for the

document was eleven years after her death. (See Dkt. 13, p. 7, note 4).

- 9 -

Larry’s failure to build a new home elsewhere is immaterial; this finding of fact in

support of the Hearing Officer’s adverse decision was inappropriate.

5. Residential Intent

The ONHIR does not challenge the fact that Dora, Larry, and their two children were

listed on the JUA enumeration roster which identifies occupied homesites and residents. The

Mike family members were listed as residents of Jeddito on the roster, which was dated

November 13, 1974, one month prior to the passage of the Settlement Act. (Dkt. 13, p. 6).

The ONHIR’s Management Manual indicates that “[t]he JUA roster is the master

record used by the Commission to determine the existence of occupied homesites . . . and to

identify residents of these homesites. (Dkt. 13, Ex. 5). “If the applicant is listed on the JUA

roster, he/she is assumed to have been a legal resident unless there is evidence to the

contrary.” Id. Despite this presumption, the Hearing Officer does not acknowledge the

enumeration roster at all in his decision.

Although not admitted as part of the record by the Hearing Officer, Dora’s voter

registration card was recognized by a Records Clerk at the Navajo Nation Elections Office

in Window Rock, Arizona, as a “temporary record.” (See Dkt. 13, pp. 7-8). A Registration

Officer had signed and dated the card on July 10, 1978, but Dora had not. Nevertheless, the

Records Clerk indicated that these temporary records never bore the voter’s signature but

were simply an interim step between an applicant’s affidavit and the eventual list of eligible

voters. (Dkt. 13, p. 7, note 4).1

 According to Plaintiff, and not contended otherwise by

Defendant, a Jeddito Chapter Coordinator confirmed that “registration with a new Chapter

is synonymous with becoming a member there.” (Dkt. 13, p. 8, note 5). 

Larry unequivocally testified that he and Dora intended to return to Jeddito, and were

in Rock Springs temporarily for work. (Dkt. 13, p. 12). Dora considered herself a resident

Case 3:06-cv-00866-EHC Document 31 Filed 01/03/08 Page 9 of 11
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

- 10 -

of Jeddito up until the time she transferred her voter registration from Jeddito to Rock

Springs in 1978. 

Dora’s voter registration card, her JUA roster listing as a legal resident of Jeddito on

November 13, 1974, and testimony of the witnesses, together are strong evidence that she

officially moved to Rock Springs when she registered to vote there on July 10, 1978.

In summary, Dora met the presumption of legal residency through her listing on the

JUA roster in late 1974, a fact the Hearing Officer did not mention in his Decision. She was

“temporarily away” from her homesite before her marriage for school. Moreover, Larry

testified she was “temporarily away” after their marriage for work, and because the couple

could not build a new home in Jeddito due to a construction freeze. 

While the couple waited for a resolution to the land dispute, Dora maintained

substantial ties and recurring contact with an identifiable homesite, her parents’ home in

Jeddito. The Hearing Officer did not explain why he characterized it as periodic interaction,

instead. When the couple decided to reside permanently in Rock Springs, Dora transferred

her voter registration accordingly.

IV. Credibility of Witnesses

The Hearing Officer found that the three witnesses, Larry, Nellie, and Vincent, were

credible witnesses. (AR, pp. 159-60). Yet, he chose to disregard the relevant testimony with

regard to Dora’s intent to live in Rock Springs temporarily until she and Larry could build

their own home in Jeddito. Furthermore, the Officer failed to explain why he found the

witnesses credible in some respects but not in others. In considering all of the witness’

testimony as credible, there is no alternative but to conclude that Dora met the criteria for

legal residency on the FJUA.

V. Fiduciary Relationship between the U.S. government and Native Americans

“The United States Supreme Court has repeatedly recognized ‘the distinctive

obligation of trust incumbent upon the Government in its dealings with [Native Americans].”

Bedoni v. Navajo-Hopi Indian Relocation Comm’n, 878 F.2d 1119, 1124 (9th Cir. 1989)

(quoting Seminole Nation v. United States, 316,U.S. 286, 296 (1942)) (alteration in original)

Case 3:06-cv-00866-EHC Document 31 Filed 01/03/08 Page 10 of 11
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

- 11 -

(citations omitted). This obligation is reflected in the ONHIR’s own Plan Update that it is

“the intent of Congress to provide for a thorough and generous [relocation benefit] program.”

(Dkt. 13, Ex. 3).

VI. Conclusion

The Hearing Officer does not justify findings which contradict testimony that he

characterizes as credible. Nor does he explain why he ignores credible evidence, in

particular, the JUA roster which names Dora as a resident of Jeddito in November of 1974.

His decision is arbitrary, capricious, and unsupported by substantial evidence. It is a clear

error of judgment. 

There are no genuine issues of material fact. The sole contested fact, the timing of

Nellie’s transfer of her home to Larry, is not material. Regardless of when the conveyance

occurred, a finding, that Plaintiff is entitled to relocation benefits, is clearly demonstrated.

Accordingly, 

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkts. 13, 15) is

granted.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt.

24) is denied.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED remanding the matter for payment of benefits to

Plaintiff.

DATED this 2nd day of January, 2008.

Case 3:06-cv-00866-EHC Document 31 Filed 01/03/08 Page 11 of 11