FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T FEB RUARY 24, 2011 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 0- 10 30 4

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D. C. Dock etNo. 0 :0 9- cv -6 00 16 -WPD HOLLYW OOD MOBILE ESTATES LIMITED, a Fl or id a Lim it edPart ne rs hi p, Pl ai nt iff - App el la nt , ve rs us MITCHELL CYPRESS , Cha irman, Sem in ol e Trib e o f Fl or id a, RICHAR D BOW ERS, Vice Ch ai rm an , Sem in ol e Trib e o f Fl or id a, MAX B. OSCEOLA, JR., ROGER SM ITH, DAVID CYPRESS, Co un ci l M em be rs , Sem in ol e Trib e o f Fl or id a, etal., Defen da nt s - Ap pe ll ees .

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt fo r th e So uthe rnDis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ (Feb ru ary 24 , 20 11 ) Befo re DUBINA, Ch ie f Ju dg e, BLACK an d F AY, Circ ui t J ud ge s. PER CURI AM:Hol lywoodMo bi le Est at es , Ltd ., (HME) ap pe al s t he di stric t co urt’s

di sm is sa l o f it s l aws ui t ag ai ns t v ari ou s o ffi ci al s o f th e Sem in ol e Trib e o f Fl or id a fo r la ck of ju ris di ct io n. Th e d is tri ctco urt h el d t he tri ba l d efen da nt s wer e en ti tl ed to so ve rei gn imm

un it y fro m HME’s reque stforanin

jun ct io n c om

pe ll in g the m

to res to re HME t o p os se ss io n o f certa in lea se d p rem is es an d fo r “ res ti tu ti on ary rel ie f” co m

pe ll in g t he de fen da nt s t o re tu rnren ts co ll ect edfro m subl eas ees . The co urt h el d t he do ctrin e o f Ex pa rt e Y ou ng , 20 9 U.S. 1 23 (19 08 ), whi ch pro vi de s a li m it edex cep ti on to so ve rei gn imm un it y forcert ai n s ui ts ag ai ns t i nd iv idua l de fen da nt s, d idno t ap pl y be cau se : (1 ) th e rel ie f so ug htby H ME was no t pr os pe ct iv e in na tu re; an d (2 ) th e reque st edrel ie f im pl ic at edsp eci al so ve rei gn ty is su es . W e aff

irm th e d is tri ctco urt’s co nc lu si on th atHME’s reque stforth e return of co ll ect edren ts do es no t fa ll withi n t he Ex pa rt e Y ou ng ex cep ti on an d i s t hu s ba rredby sov erei gnimm un ity . W e rem an d t o the di st ric t co urt fo r co ns id erat io n of HME’s reque stforanin

jun ct io n re st or in g i t t o t he pre m is es . I. DISCUSSI ON

“ W e rev ie w de n ov o t he di st ric t co urt’s d is m is sa l o f a co m pl ai ntfor so ve rei gn imm

un it y .” Sa nd

er li n v . Semi no le Tri be of Fla . , 24 3 F .3d12 82 , 12 85 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 1) . “ ‘[A] n In di antri be is subjec t t o s ui t o nl y wher e Co ng res s h as au th or iz edth e su itor t he tri be ha s wai ve d i ts imm un it y .’ ” Id . (qu ot in g Ki ow a 2Tr ib e o

f Okl a. v. Mf

g. Te ch s., In c. , 52 3 U.S. 7 51 , 75 4 (1 98 8) ). Thi s i m m un it y ex te nd s t o t rib al off

ic ia ls “ whe n t he y

actin th ei r of

fic ia l capa ci ty andwit hi n t he sc op e o f th ei r au th or it y .” Ta mia mi Pa rtne rs , Ltd. ex r el . Tami ami Dev. Co rp . v. Mic co su kee T

ri be of India ns of

Fla . , 17 7 F .3d12 12 , 12 25 (11 th Cir . 19 99 ). Whe n t rib al off

ic ia ls actbe y on d t he ir aut ho rit y , ho wev er, the y are s ub ject t o su itun de r th e d oc tri ne of Ex pa rt e Y ou ng . Id . The Y ou ng do ctrin e al lo ws s ui ts ag ai ns t o ffi cers “ se ek in g pr os pe ct iv eequi tabl e rel ie f to en d c on ti nu in g v io la ti on s of fed eral law.” McCl en do n v . Ga. Dep ’t o f Cmt y. Hea lth , 26 1 F .3d12 52 , 12 56 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 1) . The Y

ou ng do ctrin e d oe s n otap pl y

wher e th e rel ie f reque st ed

“ im pl ic at es sp eci al so ve rei gn ty int eres ts .” Se e Id ah o v . Coe ur

d’Al en e Tr ib e , 52 1 U.S. 26 1, 2 81 (19 97 ) (h ol di ng Ex pa rt e Y ou ng di d n otall ow a s ui t t ha t was th e

“ fu nc ti on al equi va le ntof aqu ie t t it le act io n” ). A. HME ’s Requ es t f

or “Res ti tu ti on ar

y Rel ie f” The d is tri ctco urt h el d t he Ex pa rt e Y ou ng do ctrin e d idno t ap pl y

to HME’s reque stfor“ res ti tu ti on ary rel ie f” co m pe ll in g t he de fen da nt s t o re tu rnco ll ect ed ren ts be cau se th is reque stwas n otpro sp ect iv e in na tu re. W e ag ree t hi s i s a ret ro sp ect iv e cl ai m

for da m ag es rathe r th ana pr os pe ct iv e reque stforrel ie f. W e th eref or e aff irm th e d is tri ctco urt’s h ol di ng th atth e tr ib al de fen da nt s ar e en ti tl edto so ve rei gn imm

un it y on th is cla im . 3B. HME ’s Requ es t f or an Inj un ct iv e Rel ie

f Res to ri ng

HME to Po ss es si on of

th e Lea se d Pr emis es The di stric t co urt co nc lu de d HM E’ s re qu es t fo r anin jun ct io n c om

pe ll in g th e d efen da nt s t o re tu rnpo ss es si on of t he lea se d p rem is es to HME co ul d n ot pr oc eedun de r Ex pa rt e Y ou ng be cau se : (1 ) itwas n otpro sp ect iv e in na tu re; an d (2 ) itim pl ic at edsp eci al so ve rei gn ty int eres ts an d was th us ba rredby Co eu r D’Alen e . W e fi rs t co ns id er the di stric t co urt’s co nc lu si on th atHME’s reque st edrel ie f was no t p ro sp ect iv e inna tu re. HME’s co m pl ai ntall eg es th e d efen da nt s ex ceed ed th e sc op e o f th ei r au th or it y un de r 25 U.S.C. § 4 50 f(a) (2 )(E) an d 2 5 C .F.R. 16 2.1 10 by un il at eral ly ej ect in g HM E fro m th e p rem is es an d b y

co nt inui ng to po ss es s pr op erty th atHME is en ti tl edto oc cupy un de r th e le as e. The d is tri ctco urt 1 We note that althoug h the def endants c laim the ejec tion was justified under the le ase 1 based on a lleg ed bre ache s by HME, the Reg ional Direc tor of the B urea u of Indian Aff

airs has conclude d no materia l brea ch occ urre d. We also note that we ne ed not eva luate the merits of HME’s claim at this stag e of the litigation nor de cide whe ther the triba l defe ndants’ conduc t in fact c onstitut ed a violation of fede ral law . In deter

mining whe ther the Ex parte Young exception applies, “a

court ne ed only conduct a straightforwa

rd inquiry into whether [the] complaint alleg es an ong oing violation of fede ral lawand see ks relief properly char acte rized as prospec tive.” Verizon Md., Inc . v. Pub. Serv. Comm’n of Md. , 535 U.S. 635, 645 (2002) (quotations and citation omitt ed). “ [T] he inquiry into whether suit lies under Ex parte Young does not include a

n analy sis of the merits of the claim.” Id. at 646 (notingthe par ties disputed whether

fede ral lawhad bee n violated or e ven g overne d the dispute); see also Coeur d’Alene , 521 U.S. at 281 (“An alleg ation of an on- g oing violation of fede ral lawwher e the r equeste d relief is prospective is ordina

rily sufficie nt to invoke the Y oung fiction.”). 4co nc lu de d HM E’ s re qu es t fo r anin jun ct io n re st or in g i t t o t he pro pe rty was n ot pr os pe ct iv e b ecau se “ itwou ldrem edy pa st , rathe r th anfutur e, ha rm s” an d “ real ly reque st s an un do in g o f wha t was do ne in th e p as t.” W e d is ag ree. HME h as all eg edth e d efen da nt s ar e d ep riv in g i t o f it s pr es en t rig htto oc cupy the pro pe rty un de r th e te rm s o f th e le as e, invi ol at io n o f fed eral la w. HME’ s re qu es t fo r anin jun ct io n d ire ct in g t he tri ba l d efen da nt s t o re st or e it to th e p ro pe rty is p ro sp ect iv e rel ie f th atwil l cu re thi s o ng oi ng vi ol at io n. Cf . St at e Emps . Bar

ga in in g Ag en t Co al . v. Rowl an d , 49 4 F .3d71 , 96 (2dCir . 20 07 ) (n ot in g in th e co nt ex t o f un lawfu l t erm in at io n c la im s t ha t “ [e]very Cir cu itto have co ns id eredth e is su e . . . has he ldth atcla im s fo r rei ns ta te m en t t o p rev io us em pl oym en t s at is fy

th e Ex pa rt e Y

ou ng ex cep ti on to th e Ele ve nt h Am en dm en t’s so ve rei gn imm

un it y ba r”); Ell io tt

v. Hin ds , 78 6 F .2d29 8, 3 02 (7th C ir. 1 98 6) (“ [R]ein st at em en t . . . is cle arl y pro sp ect iv e in effe ctan d t hu s fa ll s o ut si de th e pr oh ib it io ns of the Elev en th Am en dm en t.”) . As su ch , we con cl ud e th e d is tri ct co urt erredin it s d et erm in at io n t ha t HME s ou gh t re tro sp ect iv e rel ie f, an d we h ol d th atHME’s reque st edin

jun ct io n i s p ro sp ect iv e equi tabl e rel ie f of th e type pe rm is si bl e u nd er Y

ou ng . The tri ba l d efen da nt s h av e arg ue d, h owe ve r, th atev enif HM E’ s re qu es te d rel ie f ge ne ral ly sati sf

ie s t he requi rem en ts of Y ou ng , itis no ne th el es s b arre d u nd er 5th e d oc tri ne of Co eu r d ’ Alen e be cau se itim pl ic at es sp eci al so ve rei gn ty int eres ts . In Co eu r d ’Ale ne , th e Supr em e Co urt h el d Ex pa rt e Y ou ng di d n otall ow re li ef whe re the un de rlyin g l aws ui t was “ th e fu nc ti on al equi va le ntof aqu ie t t it le act io n whi chim pl ic at es sp eci al so ve rei gn ty int eres ts .” 52 1 U.S . at 2 81 . The Co urt n ot ed th e su itin qu es ti on effe ct iv el y so ug hta de te rm in at io n t ha t ce rta in subm erg ed la nd s “ are n otev enwithi n t he reg ul at ory juri sd ic ti onof t he Sta te ,” an d t he rel ie f reque st edwou ld“ di m in is h, ev enex ti ng ui sh , th e St at e’s co nt ro l o ve r a v as t re ach of lan ds an d wat ers lo ng de em edby the Sta te to be anin te gr al part o f it s t erri to ry .” Id. at 2 82 . Here, t he tri ba l d efen da nt s co nt en d HM E’ s re qu es te d re li ef i m pl ic at es sp eci al so ve rei gn ty int eres ts be cau se itco ul d o nl y be ob ta in edby: (1) ord eri ng th e tri ba l co un ci l m em

be rs in to ses si on ; (2 ) co m pe ll in g t he m

to pl ace m at te rs onth e ag en daco nt rary to es tabl is he d p ro cedur es ; an d (3 ) fo rci ng m em be rs to ab an do n th ei r ob li ga ti on s o f of

fic e an d v ot e as th e co urt h as di rect ed , con tra ry to th e in te res ts of t he Trib e. The d is tri ctco urt ag reed Co eu r d ’Ale ne ap pl ie d, h ol di ng HME’s reque st edrel ie f wou ldrequi re the co urt “ to tel l t he Trib al Co un ci l t o co nv en e an d wh atto do .” As an in it ia l m at te r, we no te a vo idin th e rec or d t ha t co m pl ic at es ou r rev ie w of th is is su e. Inke ep in g wi th th ei r co nt en ti on th aton ly the Trib al Co un ci l as a 6who le ha s t he au th or ity to m an ag e la nd s, t he tri ba l d efen da nt s co nt en d i n t he ir br ie f th atHME was i ni ti al ly rem ov edfro m th e le as edpro pe rty pu rs ua ntto th e

“ of fic ia l de li be ra ti ve actof am ajor it y vo te of aqu orum

of t he Trib al Co un ci l Mem be rs , act in g c ol le ct iv el y

whi le in leg al ses si on , wher ei n the Trib al Co un ci l au th or iz edth e so ve rei gngo ve rn m en t o f th e Trib e to un de rta ke a se lf- he lp rem edy ex pr es sl y au th or iz ed ” und er the lea se . Howev er, the reco rddo es no t co nt ai n a ny su ch ord in an ce o r res ol ut io n e jecti ng HME fro m

th e le as edpro pe rty, no r do es an y 2 do cu m en t i n t he reco rdde sc rib e a fo rm al vo te eject in g HM E. This ab se nc e is pa rti cu la rly pu zzl in g i n l ig htof Art ic le IV of t he Trib e’s bylaws , whi ch requi res th atall ord in an ces an d re so lu ti on s o f th e Trib al Co un ci l b e num be red co ns ecu ti ve ly andm ad e av ai labl e fo r publ ic in sp ect io n. Th e rec or d s im pl y refl ect s t ha t M it ch el l Cypres s, Ch ai rm anof the Trib al Co un ci l, s en t a l et te r on Ju ne 17 , 20 08 , st at in g HM E was i n b reac h o f th e le as e an d i f de fau lt s wer e n ot cu red , th e Trib e wou ldex erci se it s ri gh t t o re -en te r an d re ta ke th e p rem is es . The reco rdals o re fle ct s t he Trib e ex erci se d t hi s ri gh t o n J ul y 15 , 20 08 , aft er HME de ni edan y

de fau ltex is te d. No whe re d oe s t he reco rdde m on st rat e th is act io n was ta ke n b y th e Trib al Co un ci l p ur su an t t o am ajor ity vo te , as t he tri ba l d efen dant s

This was conf

irmed at ora l argument by counsel for

the def endants. 2 7ha ve cla im edin th ei r br ie f an d a s t he ir d es cri pt io n o f th ei r li m it edin di vi du al

au th or it y wou ldsee m

to requi re. The reco rd ’s fai lu re t o s up po rt t he tri ba l d efen da nt s’ ass ert io n tha t HME was rem ov edpu rs ua ntto anoff ic ia l d el ib erat iv e actcal ls in to qu es ti on th e tr ib al de fen da nt s’ ass ert io ns ab ou t t he pro ces s g en eral ly requ ire d t o e ffec t a c hang e in po ss es si on of t he lea se d p ro pe rty andlea ve s thi s C ou rt wi th ou t a m ean s t o a ss es s pr eci se ly wha t re li ef wo ul d b e requi redto res to re HME t o p os se ss io n i n thi s ca se . If the eject io n was no t i n a cco rd an ce wi thth e tr ib e’s requi redpro cedur es , itis un cl ear wh y

a fo rm al vo te is ne ces sa ry to co rrec t i t. Inan y cas e, as su m in g t he tri ba l d efen dant s’ des cri pt io n o f th e st ep s re qu ire d to res to re HME t o t he pre m is es is accu rat e, we ho ldHME’s reque st edrel ie f do es no t i m pl ic at e “ sp eci al so ve rei gn ty int eres ts ” o f th e type t he Co urt fo un d t o b e pr ot ect edin Co eu r d ’Ale ne . As we ex pl ai ne d i n Su mmit Med. Ass oc s., P.C. v. Pryo r , 18 0 F .3d13 26 , 13 40 (11 th Cir . 19 99 ), “ th e rem edy in Co eu r d ’Ale ne wou ld ha ve res ol ve d, fo r al l t im e, Id ah o’s p ro pe rty int eres ts in th e d is pu te d s ub m erg ed la nd s.” Su ch rel ie f was ba rredbe cau se itwas t he “ fu nc ti on al equi va le nt ” o f a qu ie t t it le act io n a ga in stth e st at e. Id. Here, t he reque st edin

jun ct io n wo ul d m erel y

affe ctth e tr ib e’s po ss es so ry rig ht s t o t he pro pe rty for t he rem ai nd er o f th e le as e te rm . It wo ul d n otrem ov e th e 8la ndfro m

th e tr ib e’s juri sd ic ti on or p erm an en tl y de pr iv e th e tr ib e o f it s p ro pe rty in te res ts . The fac t t he tri ba l o ffi ci al s m ay ha ve to tak e a v ot e to effe ctco m pl ia nc e wit h s uc h an i nju nc ti ondo es no t cr eat e a “ sp eci al so ve rei gn ty int eres t.” We th eref or e h ol d t ha t t he di st ric t co urt erredin co nc lu di ng th e rel ie f so ug ht im pl ic at es sp eci al so ve rei gn ty int eres ts . Ins te ad , we ho ld , bas edon th is reco rdan d th es e p art ie s, t ha t HME’s re qu es t fo r an in jun ct io n re st or in g i t t o t he pre m is es is no t b arre d b y

tri ba l s ov erei gn im

m un it y . W e d o n otad dr es s wh ethe r th e actua l en try of s uc h a n i njunc ti on wou ldbe ap pr op ria te un de r th e ci rcu m st an ces of t hi s cas e, no r do we ad dr es s wh ethe r th e tr ib al off ic ia ls ’ act io ns were i n fa ctin vi ol at io n o f fed eral law. We deci de on ly tha t t rib al so ve rei gn imm un it y is no t a juri sd ic ti on al ba r to HME’s cla im forin jun ct iv e rel ie f res to rin g i t t o t he pre m is es . II. CONCLUSION W e aff irm th e d is tri ctco urt’s d is m is sa l o f HME’s cl ai m forth e return o f co ll ect edren ts . Howev er, b ecau se we ha ve de te rm in edth e d is tri ctco urt erredin ho ld in g t rib al so ve rei gn im m un it y ba rs HME’s cla im

foranin jun ct io n t o b e res to redto th e p rem is es , we rev ers e th e d is tri ctco urt’s d is m is sa l o f th is cla im . W e rem an d t o t he di stric t co urt fo r fu rth er p ro ceed in gs in acco rd an ce wi th th is op in io n. AFFIR MED in pa rt, R EVERSED inpa rt, a ndREMANDED. 9