## F I LED Unite d St at e s C ourt o f Appe als Te nt h Ci r c uit 

### Ju l y 24, 2006 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C l erk of C ourt PU BL I SH UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS

T E N T H C IR C U IT BO B B UR RE L L a n d S US AN BU RRELL, P l ai nti ffs-A pp el l ants , v. N o. 03- 2223 L E O N A R D A R M IJO , G o v e rn o r o f S a n ta A n a P u e b lo a n d A c tin g C h ief o f S a n ta An a Tr i b a l P o l i c e ; LAWRENCE M O N T O Y A , L t . G overnorof Sant a A na Puebl o; N A T H A N T SO SI E , T r i bal A dm i ni s tr at orof Sant a A na Puebl o; J E R R Y K I N SM A N , Far m A dm i ni s t r at or o f S a n t a An a P u e b l o ; S ANT A ANA P UE BL O, D efen dan t s- A pp el l ees.

AP P EA L F ROM THE UNI TE D S TA TE S DI S TR I CT COURT

F OR THE DI S TR I CT OF NE W M EX I CO ( D . C . N o. C I V 02 - 54 2 W J/ D JS) C hri s L ucero, Jr . , A l bu qu erque, N ew M exico, for pl ai nti ffs-appel l ants . R ich a rd W . H u g h e s (C a re n I. F rie d m a n , w ith h im o n th e b rie f ), R o th ste in , D o n a telli, H ug hes, D ahls t rom & S cho enb urg, L L P , S anta Fe, N ew M exico, for defen dan t sapp el l ees. B ef o re B R I S C O E , M c W I L L I A M S , and M c CO NNELL , C i rcui tJudg es.1 T he fol l ow i ng fac t s ar e t aken f r om the B urr el l s ’ compl ai nt . W e as s um e the trut h of th e se f a c ts f o r p u rp o se s o f

th is a p p e a l. 2 A tor al ar gum ent , couns el forthe Puebl o s t at ed thatal t hough the U ni t ed St at es -2- B RI S CO E , C i r cui tJ udge. B ob and Sus an B ur r el l ( “the B urr el l s ”) fi l ed thi s act i on agai ns tthe Sant a A na Puebl o ( “the Puebl o”) , a fe der al l yr ecogni zed I ndi an tr i be; L eonar d A r m i j o, G overnorof the Puebl o; L aw r ence M ont oy a, L i eut enantG overnorof the Puebl o; N athan Tsos i e, T r i bal A dm i ni s t r at orof the Puebl o; and J err yK i ns m an, Far m A dm i ni s t r at orof the Puebl o, forvi ol at i ons of thei rci vi l r i ght s pur s uantt o 42 U . S. C . §§ 1981, 1983, and 1985, as w el l as cl ai m s forbr eac h of a f eder al farm l eas e and “ r es pondeats uper i or . ” The d istri ct co u rtinit ial lystay ed the c ase so that the B u rrell s co u ld ex h au st th eir tri b al co u rt r emedi es . A ft ert he Sant a A na Puebl o T r i bal C our trul ed thatthe Puebl o and the named tr i bal offi ci al s w er e ent i t l ed t o s over ei gn i m m uni t y , the di s t r i ctcour trul ed thatthe tr i bal cour t ’ s deci s i on w as ent i t l ed t o pr ecl us i ve ef fec tand di s m i s s ed the B urr el l s ’ cas e. T he B urr el l s now appea l . E xer ci s i ng j ur i s di ct i on pur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . § 1291, w e hol d t hat the di s tr i cts houl d nothave gi ven pr ecl us i ve ef fec torot herw i s e r ecogni zed the tr i bal cour t ’ s rul i ng, and ther efor e r ever s e and r emand t he ca s e forfur t herpr ocee di ngs c o n s is te n t w ith th is o p in io n . I . F AC T UAL BA CK GR OUND 1 I n M ay1980, t he B ur r el l s ent er ed i nt o a t en- y earfarm i ng l eas e w i t h t he Puebl o for ap p rox im ately1 7 2 ac res o f th e P u eb lo’s land . A cc o rdin g to the B u rrell s, theyw ere 2D epart m entof I nt er i orpos s es s ed author i t yoverthe l eas e, the Puebl o’ s cons entt o t he

lea se w a s n e c e ss a ry . F u rth e rm o re , co u n se l n o ted th a t th e P u e b lo c o u ld n o t u n ilate ra lly t erm i nat e the l eas e, butw as r equi r ed t o cont actthe U ni t ed St at es D epart m entof I nt er i or to in itia te s u c h p ro c e e d in g s . -3- i nform ed thati f theyconduct ed a s ucce s s ful farm i ng oper at i on, the l eas e w oul d be r enew ed foras l ong as t heyl i ved. A s a r es ul t , the B urr el l s obt ai ned fa r m l oans fr om t he F a rm e r’s H o m e A d m in istra tio n (“ F H A ” ) a n d in v e ste d th e ir p e rso n a l as se ts in o rd e r to pur chas e equi pm entand otherm at er i al s nece s s aryt o run a fa r m . I n February1985, the T r i bal C ounci l of the Puebl o ( t he “tr i bal counci l ”) ext ended the l eas e unt i l Sept ember 2 0 0 0 s o th a t th e B u rr e lls c o u ld re f in a n c e th e irF H A lo a n s . T h e Bu r r e l l s i n t e g r a t e d t h e ms e l v e s i n t o th e wa y s o f th e P u e b l o a n d , i n th e i ro wn w o rd s, w e re “ so m e tim e s” tre a ted “ m o re th a n f a ir” b yP u e b lo o f

f icia ls. T h e B u rre lls as s er t , how ever , t hatovert he y ear s Puebl o offi ci al s s ubj ect ed them t o var i ous form s of d isc rim in a tio n . S e e A p p . at 1 2 -1 3 . F o r e x a m p le, th e B u rre lls c laim th a t P u e b lo o f f icia ls pr ohi bi t ed them from dr i vi ng t hei rfarm equi pm ental ong paved r oads , pr event ed them f ro m u sin g m o re th a n a c o u p le o f h o rse b a c k rid e rs to m o v e th e ir c a ttl e , an d re f u se d to p erm itco n stru cti o n o f c o n cre te ditche s in the irfields– all w h il e a ll o w ing tr ibal m em b ers these pri vil eges. T he B ur r el l s al l ege thatt he di s cr i m i nat i on agai ns tthem w or s ened i n ear l y1997 w hen ac t i ng C hi ef of

Pol i ce Leonar d A r m i

j o beca m e G overnorof the Puebl o. I n J une 1997, G overnorA r m i

j o al l egedl yor der ed them t o qui tbai l i ng hayatni ght , even though tr i bal m ember s w er e perm i t t ed t o do s o. M or eover , the B urr el l s m ai nt ai n t hatot her-4-

Puebl o offi ci al s , i ncl udi ng L i eut enantG overnorL aw r ence M ont oy a, T r i bal A dm i ni s t r at or N a th a n T so sie , an d F a rm A d m in istra to r Je rryK in sm a n , ref u se d to in ter f

e re w ith G o v e rn o r A rm ijo ’s o rd e r a n d w o rk e d w ith h im to d ri v e th e m o f f th e irf a rm . A p p . a t 1 4 . I n J ul y1997, L i eut enantG overnorM ont oy a i nqui r ed as t o w hatamount the B urr el l s w oul d acc eptfr om t he Puebl o t o buyoutthe fa r m l eas e. T he B urr el l s pr opos ed $500, 000. O n J ul y24, t he B ur r el l s cont end thatthe tr i bal counci l vot ed t o buyoutthe l eas e for$500, 000 and thata tr i bal m emberi nform ed them t hatthe vot e w as 47- 2. T hat sam e m o n th, th e B u rrell s all eg e tha t Fa rm A d m inistrator K insm an o rde red tr ibal fa rm c re w s to ta k e o v e r t h e irf a rm . T he B ur r el l s as s ertt hatG overnorA r m i j o, L i eut enantG overnorM ont oy a, T r i bal A dm i ni s tr at orT s os i e, and Farm A dm i ni s t r at orK i ns m an ( her ei naft er“the i ndi vi dual t r i bal o f f icia ls” ) re f

u se d to c o m p lyw ith th e trib a l co u n c il’s re so lu tio n to b u yo u t th e B u rre lls for$500, 000. I ns t ead, t heypr ocee ded t o negot i at e forl es s m oney . T he B urr el l s al l ege thatthe i ndi vi dual t r i bal offi ci al s l acke d t he author i t yt o r efus e t o puti nt o eff ectthe tr i bal c o u n c il’ s re s o lu tio n . O n A u g u st 1 5 , 1 9 9 7 , the in d iv id u a l triba l o f f icia ls a lleg e d lyh ire d o th e rs to b a le the B urr el l s ’ haycr op and then di s t r i but ed partof the cr op t o Puebl o m ember s . T he B u rre lls c laim th a t th is c o n d u c t am o u n ted to lar c e n y . O n A u g u st 2 5 , the B u rre lls re m o v e d th e irtw o m o b ile h o m e s a n d a ll o f th e irf a rm e q u ip m e n t f

ro m th e le a s e d la n d . A few day s l at er , t he i ndi vi dual t r i bal offi ci al s and thei rat t orneym etw i t h t he B urr el l s and offe r ed them t he fol l ow i ng packa ge: $218, 000 t o payoff thei rFH A l oan; thr ee y ear s of-5-

h ea lth insu ran ce ; a ho m e lot o ff o f th e P u eb lo f

o r th e m o b il e h o m es; an d to h ir e M r. B urr el l as farm m anage rfort he Puebl o. T he B urr el l s cont end thatthe i ndi vi dual tr i bal o f f icia ls w ith d re w th e o f

f e r o n S e p tem b e r 2 3 , b u t th a t th e trib a l co u n c il v o ted to re in sta te th e o f f e ro n S e p t e m b e r2 5 . I n O c t o b e r1 9 9 7 , th e B u r r e l l s , th r o u g h th e i ra t t o r n e y, demanded al l t r i bal counci l r ecor ds deal i ng w i t h t hei rfarm l eas e t o “s ee i f ther e [w as ] any pos s i bi l i tyof avoi di ng l i t i gat i on. ” B yJ anuary1998, the tr i bal counci l had pas s ed a res olut i on res ci nd i ng t he S eptem ber 199 7 o ffer t o the B urr el l s. I ti s t he B ur r el l s ’ pos i t i on t hatthe i ndi vi dual tr i bal offi ci al s i nt ent i onal l yr an them off thei rfarm , s t ol e thei rcr ops , t erm i nat ed thei rl eas e, and di s cr i m i nat ed aga i ns tthem on a c c o u n t o f

th e irra c e (n o n -I n d ia n ). A p lt. B r. a t 1 3 . I I . P ROCEDURAL HI S TORY A . A dm i nis tr at i ve P r ocee di ngs B ef or e the B ur eau of I

ndi an A f f ai rs , U ni ted S tat es D epar tm ent

of I nt er i or T h e B u rre lls’ c o m p lain t as se rts th a t b e g in n in g in 1 9 9 7 , the P u e b lo o f f icia ls f a lse ly i nform ed the B ur eau of I ndi an A ffa i r s ( “B I A ”) thattheyabandone d t hei rfarm , vi ol at ed thei rl eas e, and def

aul t ed on thei rFH A l oan and w at err i ght s as s es s m ent s . A pp. at17. A trib a l co u n c il res o lu tio n d a ted O c to b e r 1 , 1 9 9 8 , sta ted th a t th e B u rre lls a b a n d o n e d th e ir lea se in th e su m m e r o f 1 9 9 7 a n d re q u e ste d th a t th e B IA in stitu te pr ocee di ngs t o t erm i nat e the fa r m l eas e. I d. at41. A l ett erdat ed February11, 1999, fr om the Super i nt endentof the Sout hern Puebl os A gency , B I A , U ni t ed St at es D epart m entof I nt er i or , not i fi ed the B ur r el l s t hatt he fa r m l eas e w as canc el l ed. I d. at43- 44. T he-6-

Super i nt endentci t ed the B ur r el l s ’ fai l ur e t o keep thei rper form ance bond up t o dat e, t he tr i bal counci l ’ s O ct ober1998 r es ol ut i on, and del i nquentoper at i ons and mai nt enanc e c h a rg e s a s re a so n s f

o r th e d e c isio n . T h e S u p e rin ten d e n t als o n o ted th e B u rre lls’ f a ilu re to re s p o n d to th e o f

f ic e ’s p ri o r r e q u e s ts f

o r i n f o rm a tio n . Id . T he B ur r el l s appea l ed thatdeci s i on t o t he A l buquer que A r ea O ffi ce, B I A , U ni t ed St at es D epart m entof I nt er i or . O n M ay26, 1999, the A r ea D i r ect oraff i r m ed the Super i nt endent ’ s deci s i on t o canc el t he l eas e. I d. at45. I n par t i cul ar , the A r ea D i r ect or o b se rv e d th a t th e B u rre lls se n t a le tter d a ted Ju n e 2 2 , 1 9 9 8 , to th e S u p e rin ten d e n t, compl ai ni ng t hatdi s cr i m i nat i on fr om Puebl o offi ci al s amount ed t o a cons t ruct i ve t erm i nat i on and br eac h of the l eas e. I d. at48. T hatJ une 1998 l ett ers t at ed, i n r el evant p a rt: “[ T h e B u rre lls] d id n o t v o lu n tar ilya b a n d o n th e ir lea se , b u t in ste a d w e re ill e g a lly dr i ven off

t hei rl ands w hi ch theyw or ked pea cef ul l yfor17 y ear s , al l beca us e of the prej ud i ce of

a few t ri bal offi ci al s. T he im po si t i on of a p erform ance b on d u nd er these ci r cumst ance s i s notpr oper . ” I d. at53. A ddi t i onal l y , the A r ea D i r ect ors t at ed thatthe B urr el l s di d n ot di spute the v i olat i on s ci t ed b ythe S up eri ntenden t , bu tthat the B urr el l s’ a tto rn e ya d v ise d th e o f

f ice th a t itf

a c e d f e d e ra l li tig a tio n if

it co n tin u e d to re f

u se to enfor ce the B ur r el l s ’ contr actual and cons t i tut i onal r i ght s . I d. at48. T he A r ea D i r ect or concl uded thatt he B ur r el l s ’ cl ai m s fai l ed t o excus e thei rm ul t i pl e br eac hes underthe le a s e . Id . a t 4 9 . T he B ur r el l s appea l ed the A r ea D i r ect or ’ s deci s i on t o t he I nt er i orB oar d of I ndi an A ppeal s ( “I B I A ”) , U ni t ed St at es D epart m entof I nt er i or . T he I B I A aff i r m ed the A r ea-7-

D i r ect or ’ s deci s i on on M ay17, 2000. I d. at52. T he I B I A hel d t hatthe B I A di d nothave a trus tdutyt ow ar d t he B ur r el l s , r ej ect i ng the B urr el l s ’ ar gum entthatthe l eas e vi ol at i ons s houl d be exc us ed bec aus e of the B I A ’ s fai l ur e t o i nves t i gat e thei ral l egat i ons agai ns tt he Puebl o. I d. at55. Speci fi cal l y , t he I B I A det erm i ned thatthe B urr el l s r epor t ed the a lle g a tio n s o f

d is c ri m in a tio n to th e B IA lo n g a f te r t h e yw e re in v io la tio n o f th e le a s e . Id . T her efor e, t he I B I A concl uded thatthe B I A ’ s fai l ur e t o i nves t i gat e thos e al l egat i ons w as notthe ca us e of the B urr el l s ’ l eas e vi ol at i ons . I d. T h e B u rr e lls d id n o t s e e k f e d e ra l c o u rt re v ie w o f

th e IB IA ’s d e c is io n . B . Feder alC our tand Tri balC our tP r ocee di ngs O n A p ri l 14 , 1 9 9 8 , the B u rrell s filed a n ac ti o n in the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt fort he D i s t r i ctof N ew M exi co, B urr el l v. A r m i j o, etal . , C I V 98- 0438 J C / W W D , al l egi ng ci vi l r i ght s cl ai m s under42 U . S. C . §§ 1981, 1983, and 1985, as w el l as a s epar at e count b a s e d o n “ re s p o n d e a t s u p e ri o r,” a g a in s t th e P u e b lo a n d th e in d iv id u a l tr ib a l o f f ic ia ls . A pp. at21, 226- 45. T he di s t r i ctcour tdi s m i s s ed thatact i on w i thoutpr ej udi ce be caus e of the B u rrell s’ fa il u re to e x h au st tri b al co u rtrem ed ies, fo ll o w ing the S u p rem e C o u rt ’s deci s i ons i n N at i onal Far m er s U ni on I ns ur ance C om pani es v. C r ow T r i be, 471 U . S. 845 ( 1985) and I ow a M utual I ns ur ance C om panyv. L aPl ant e, 480 U . S. 9 ( 1987) . I d. at21, 246- 52. I n part i cul ar , t he di s t r i ctcour tr ej ect ed the B urr el l s ’ cont ent i ons thatthe ex h au sti o n rule d id n o t app lyb ec au se th e tri b al co u rtlack ed juri sd ict ion o v er the irB IA l ease and ci vil ri gh t s cl ai m s. Id. at25 0. T he d i stri ctcou rtfou nd that the B urr el l s’ co m p lai n t cou ld n o t be c o n stru ed to claim a re m ed yu n d er the p rov isi o n s o f th e B IA3 T he tr i bal courtcom plai nt i s ess enti al l ythe sam e com plai nt fi l ed in the B urr el l s’

fi r s tfede r al act i on. T he tr i bal courtcompl ai ntcont ai ned ci vi l r i ght s cl ai m s under42 U . S . C . § § 1 9 8 1 , 1 9 8 3 , an d 1 9 8 5 , an d claim s fo r bre ac h o f lea se, resp o n d ea t sup erior, negl i gence , and vi ol at i ons of pr oper t yr i ght s and “tr i bal l aw s and tr adi t i on. ” A pp. at254- 7 3 . 4 Th e Bu r r e l l s a c k n o wl e d g e t h a tth e c o mp l a i n ti n th i s a c t i o n i s b a s i c a l l yth e s a me c o m p lain t f

iled in th e f

irst f e d e ra l ac tio n a n d in th e trib a l co u rt. A p p . at 2 1 , 1 8 9 . In f a c t, the B urr el l s s t at e thatt he tw o fede r al pr ocee di ngs and the tr i bal cour tpr ocee di ng “i nvol ve the s ame par t i es , t he s ame i s s ues of fa ctand l aw , and ar e ac tual l ythe s ame cas e. ” I d. at -8- l eas e, and thatt he B ur r el l s fai l ed t o “ci t e anyexpr es s j ur i s di ct i onal pr ohi bi t i ons w hi ch pr eventtr i bal court s fr om hear i ng t hei rci vi l r i ght s cl ai m s . ” I d. T he B urr el l s di d not a p p e a l th a t d e c is io n . O n O ct ober29, 1998, t he B urr el l s r e- fi l ed thei rl aw s ui ti n t he Sant a A na Tri bal C our t( her ei naft er“tr i bal court ”) . I n t hatact i on, the Puebl o and the i ndi vi dual tr i bal 3 o ff ici als fil ed a m o ti o n to d ism iss on the g rou n d s o f tri b al so v ere ign im m u n ityan d fa il u re to sta te a c laim . M e a n w h ile, th e B u rre lls f iled se v e ra l m o tio n s, in c lu d in g m o tio n s to co m p el disco v ery , a m o ti o n fo r an ev iden ti aryh ea ri n g , an d a m o ti o n fo r a tem p o rary r es tr ai ni ng or derand/ ora pr el i m i naryi nj unct i on t o pr eventtr i bal offi ci al s fr om har as s i ng trib a l m e m b e rs w h o p ro v id e d a ss ista n c e to th e B u rre lls. T rib a l Ju d g e F lo y d J. K e z e le hel d tw o evi dent i aryhear i ngs on al l pendi ng m att er s on February29, 2000, and M ar ch 21, 2000. A pp. at23. B yM ay2002, J udge K eze l e had noti s s ued anydeci s i ons on t he pen ding m oti on s. O n M ay14, 2002, t he B ur r el l s fi l ed the pr es entact i on i n t he U ni t ed St at es D i s tr i ct C our tforthe D i s t r i ctof N ew M exi co. T he compl ai ntal l eged thatexhaus t i on of tr i bal 41 8 9 . -9-

cour tr emedi es s houl d notbe r equi r ed bec aus e J udge K eze l e deni ed the B urr el l s due pr oces s of l aw byfai l i ng t o m ake a nyrul i ngs on t he pendi ng m ot i ons foral m os tfour y ear s . A pp. at22- 23. T he compl ai ntal s o as s ert ed thatJ udge K eze l e’ s conduct “exhi bi t ed extr eme bi as i n favorof the Puebl o of Sant a A na and [ t he] tr i bal offi ci al s ” w ho p a id h is s a la ry. Id . T h e P u e b lo a n d th e in d iv id u a l triba l o f f icia ls s u b se q u e n tlyf

iled a m o tio n to di s m i s s pur s uantt o Fed. R . C i v. P. 12( b) ( 1) and ( b) ( 6) . I n t hi s m ot i on, theyas s ert ed that th e B u rre lls’ c o m p lain t sh o u ld b e d ism iss e d f o r f a ilu re to sta te a c laim a n d f o r f a ilu re to exhaus tt r i bal courtr emedi es , and thatthe ac t i on agai ns tthe Puebl o w as barr ed bytr i bal s over ei gn i m m uni t y . A pp. at29, 57. T he di s t r i ctcour tgr ant ed the mot i on on t he exhaus t i on of r emedi es gr ound. I d. at158- 65. T he di s t r i ctcour ts t at ed thatats om e poi nt a del ayi n t r i bal courtpr ocee di ngs m i ghtbe s uffi ci entt o i nvoke an e xcept i on t o t he exh aust i on requi rem ent, bu tgiven t he ap po i ntm ent of a new tri bal j ud ge to the B urr el l s’ cas e, the di s t r i ctcourtconcl uded thatthe tr i bal cour tr emai ned an a vai l abl e forum fort he B urr el l s t o ex hau stt heirrem edies . Id. at16 3-64. Th us, the d i stri ctcou rtst ay ed the case f o r s ix m o n th s to p ro v id e th e tr ib a l c o u rt a n o p p o rt u n ity to a d d re s s th e B u rr e lls ’ c la im s . I d. at164. T he di s t r i ctcourtdecl i ned t o addr es s tr i bal s over ei gn i m m uni t yunt i l the i s s ue o f e x h a u s tio n h a d b e e n re s o lv e d . Id . W i thi n t hats i x m ont h per i od, T r i bal C our tJ udge A ngel a Luhan i s s ued an “ O r der G r ant i ng D efe ndant ’ s [s i c] M ot i on t o D i s m i s s on G r ounds of Sover ei gn I m m uni t y . ” A pp.5 In addit i on al t o thei r pr i or pend i ng m oti on s befo re J ud ge K ezel e, the B urr el l s al so

fi l ed s ever al m ot i ons befor e J udge Luhan, i ncl udi ng m ot i ons t o compel di s covery , amend th e irc o m p la in t, a n d o rd e r a rb itr a tio n . A p p . a t 2 2 0 . -10- a t 1 6 8 . T h e o rd e r sta ted in its e n tirety :

T H IS M A T T E R co m es b ef o re the C o u rtp u rsua n t t o D ef en d an t’ s [s i c] M ot i on t o D i s m i s s [o] n G r ounds of Sover ei gn I m m uni t y . H avi ng re v iew e d th e e n tire f

ile in th is m a tter, su b m iss io n s o f th e p a rties , ap p lica b le l a w, a n d b e i n g o t h e r wi s e f u l l ya d v i s e d o n th e i s s u e s , T HE CO UR T F I NDS thatSant a A na Tri bal C our thas J ur i s di ct i on t o hearthi s m at t er , and D efe ndant ’ s [s i c] m ot i on i s w el l t aken a nd gr ant ed, and ther e i s no need f or an yfu rth er h ea ri n g s in this m att er. IT IS T H E R E F O R E O R D E R E D th a t D e f e n d a n t’s [ sic ] M o tio n to Di s mi s s i s h e r e b yGRANTED o n th e g r o u n d s th a tP l a i n t i f f ’ s [ s i c ] c l a i ms ar e barr ed byt he Sover ei gn I m m uni t yof D efe ndant , Puebl o of Sant a A na, f ro m su it. I d. Judg e L uh an d i d n ot i ssue a ruli ng on anyotherm oti on s. 5 A ft ert he Puebl o and the i ndi vi dual tr i bal offi ci al s not i fi ed the di s t r i ctcour tof the tr i bal court ’ s deci s i on, t he B ur r el l s fi l ed a mot i on as ki ng the di s t r i ctcour tt o decl ar e the tr i bal court ’ s deci s i on “nul l and voi d. ” A pp. at169, 188. T he di s t r i ctcour tdeni ed the m ot i on, r efus i ng t o r evi ew t he B ur r el l s ’ ar gum ent s thatthe tr i bal cour tfai l ed t o or dert he p a rties to a rb itratio n a n d th a t th e trib a l co u rt’s s o v e re ig n im m u n ityru lin g w a s c o n tra ryto S u p re m e C o u rt p re c e d e n t. Id . at 1 9 4 -2 0 1 . T h e d istric t co u rt sta ted th a t itc o u ld o n ly r evi ew t he tr i bal court ’ s det erm i nat i on r egar di ng i t s j ur i s di ct i on t o adj udi cat e the B urr el l s ’ cl ai m s , butt hatnot hi ng i n the B urr el l s ’ m ot i on coul d be cons t rued as s uch a r eques t . Y et , t he di s t r i ctcourtent er t ai ned the B urr el l s ’ ar gum entt o decl ar e the tr i bal cour t ’ s deci s i on voi d bas ed on a l ack of due pr oces s . I d. at197. A l t hough the di s t r i ct-11-

cour ti ni t i al l ydet erm i ned thati t s r eadj udi cat i on of i s s ues pr evi ous l yr es ol ved bya tr i bal c o u rt w a s n o t su p p o rte d b yS u p re m e C o u rt p re c e d e n t, i t alte rn a tiv e lyre a c h e d th e m e rits of the B urr el l s ’ due pr oces s ar gum entand found thatthe tr i bal cour t ’ s pr ocee di ngs pr ovi ded ade quat e due pr oces s . I d. at198. T he di s t r i ctcour tconcl uded i t s rul i ng by request i ng t he p art i es t o fil e st atus bri efs add res si ng , ata m i nim um , the fo l l ow i ng i ssues: w hetherthe s t ays houl d be l i ft ed; w hetherthe s t ays houl d be ext ended pe ndi ng fur t her e x h a u s tio n ; a n d w h e th e r t h e B u rr e lls ’ c la im s s h o u ld b e d is m is s e d . Id . a t 1 9 3 -9 4 , 2 0 1 . I n the s t atus br i efs fi l ed, t he part i es agr eed thatthe B urr el l s had ful l yexhaus t ed th e irtr ib a l c o u rt re m e d ie s b e c a u s e it a p p e a re d th a t n o a p p e lla te re v ie w w a s a v a ila b le . A p p . at 2 0 4 , 2 2 0 -2 1 . T h e P u e b lo a n d th e in d iv id u a l triba l o f f icia ls a lso m a in tain e d in theirst atus bri efs that the d i stri ctcou rtshou l d li ftthe st ayand dis m i ss the B urr el l s’ co m p lai n t w ith p rejud ice u n d er r es j udi cata pri ncipl es, a rg u in g th a t th e trib a l co u rt f u lly a d ju d ic a te d th e B u rr e lls ’ c la im s . Id . a t 2 0 3 -1 4 . T h e d istric t co u rt su b se q u e n tlylifte d th e sta yb e c a u se th e p a rties d id n o t d isp u te that the B u rrell s ex h au sted their tri b al co u rtrem ed ies. A p p . at 39 8 . T h e d istri ct co u rt al s o cons trued the Puebl o and the i ndi vi dual tr i bal offi ci al s ’ s t atus br i ef a s a s econd m ot i on t o di s m i s s r ai s i ng r es j udi cata as a new gr ound fordi s m i s s al , and pr ovi ded the B urr el l s an oppor tuni t yt o r es pond. I d. at400. T he B urr el l s , how ever , di d notfi l e a r es pons e. O n A ugus t29, 2003, t he di s tr i ctcour ti s s ued a de ci s i on on t he unoppos ed s econd mot i on t o d i s mi s s . A pp . a t40 2- 40 6. The di s t r i c tc ou r tno t e d tha tun de rFe d. R. Ci v. P.-12-

41( b) and Tent h C i r cui tpr ece dent , a di s m i s s al forl ack of j ur i s di ct i on ( s uch as s over ei gn im m u n ity ) did n o t op era te as a fin al ad jud icati o n o n the m erit s u n d er re s ju d ica ta pr i nci pl es . I d. at404. N evert hel es s , the di s t r i ctcour ts t at ed thatunderthe doctr i ne of col l at er al es t oppel , a di s m i s s al forl ack of j ur i s di ct i on pr ecl uded “r el i t i gat i on of the j ur i s di ct i onal i s s ues nece s s ar i l ydeci ded on the j ur i s di ct i onal ques t i on. ” I d. at405 ( ci t i ng M a to sa n to s C o m m e rc ial C o rp . v . A p p leb e e ’s I n t’l, In c ., 2 4 5 F .3 d 1 2 0 3 , 1 2 0 9 -1 0 (1 0 th C ir . 2 0 0 1 ); S te w a rt S e c . C o rp . v . G u a r. T ru s t C o ., 5 9 7 F .2 d 2 4 0 , 2 4 1 (1 0 th C ir . 1 9 7 9 )) . A p p ly in g th is la w , the d istric t co u rt c o n c lu d e d th a t th e trib a l co u rt “ n e c e ss a rily d e ter m in e d th a t th e D e f e n d a n ts w e re e n tit led to so v e re ig n im m u n ityw ith re g a rd to a ll cl ai m s and thati m m uni t yhad notbeen w ai ved. ” A pp. at405. A s a r es ul t , the di s t r i ct cour thel d t hatt he tr i bal court ’ s deci s i on w as ent i t l ed t o pr ecl us i ve ef fec t . I d. T he di s tr i ct cour tnot ed, as i tdi d pr evi ous l yi n t he ca s e, thati tpos s es s ed the author i t yt o cons i der w h ethe r th e tri b al co u rth ad juri sd ict ion to d ec ide th e B u rrell s’ claim s. T h e d istri ct co u rt then comm ent ed: Pl ai nt i ffs have ne verm ade a n i nt el l i gi bl e ar gum entchal l engi ng the ju ri s d ic tio n o f

th e S a n ta A n a T ri b a l C o u rt o v e r t h e irv a ri o u s c la im s . Pl ai nt i ffs . . . [pr evi ous l yar gued] thatthe tr i bal cour tl acke d j ur i s di ct i on ov er the B IA l ease becau se of an al l eged arbi t rat i on cl ause w i t hin the leas e an d lack ed juri sd ict ion o v er a ll P lai n ti ff s’ claim s b ec au se tri b al co u rt s are gener al l yunfai r . T hes e ar gum ent s do notr el at e t o t he j ur i s di ct i onal a u th o ri ty o f

th e S a n ta A n a T ri b a l C o u rt o v e r P la in tif f s ’ c a u s e s o f

a c tio n . Pl ai nt i ffs m ade no f

ur t herat t empt t o chal l enge the j ur i s di ct i on of the tr i bal cour t . T her efor e, t hi s C our thas neveraddr es s ed the j ur i s di ct i on of the S anta A na T ri bal C ou rtas i trel at es t o P l ai nti ffs’ cl ai m s. Id . a t 4 0 5 -0 6 .-13-

I I I . STAN DA RD OF REV I EW T he B ur r el l s ’ not i ce of

appea l r efe r ence s onl ythe di s t r i ctcour t ’ s A ugus t29, 2003, o rde r dism issi n g their claim s b ase d o n the p rec lusive ef fe ct ac co rde d to the tr ibal co u rt ’s s over ei gn i m m uni t ydeci s i on. A pp. at408; s ee Sal guer o v. C i t yof C l ovi s , 366 F. 3d 1168, 1172 ( 10t h C i r . 2004) ( ci t at i on om i t t ed) ( r evi ew i ng the di s t r i ctcour t ’ s appl i cat i on o f th e d o ctri n e o f c o ll ateral estop p el de n o v o ). T h e B u rrell s’ ap p ell ate b ri ef , h o w ev er, d o es n o t l im itit self to c h all en g ing the d istri ct co u rt ’s co ll ateral estop p el ruli n g . R athe r, the B urr el l s s pend a s i gni fi cantpor t i on of thei rbr i ef a r gui ng thatthe di s t r i ctcour terr ed bydeny i ng t hei rm ot i on t o decl ar e the tr i bal cour t ’ s deci s i on “nul l and voi d. ” They focus , i n part i cul ar , on t he al l eged l ack of due pr oces s aff

or ded t o t hem duri ng the tr i bal cour tpr ocee di ngs . W e bel i eve thatthe i s s ues i nvol ved i n t he deni al of that m ot i on–w hether , and underw hatci r cumst ance s , a fe der al cour tm ayr efus e t o r ecogni ze orenfor ce a t r i bal j udgm ent–ar e i nt er t w i ned and a r guabl yi ns epar abl e fr om the ques t i on of w hethert o g i ve the tri bal court ’s j ud gm ent pr ecl usi ve ef fect . T herefore, w e al so r evi ew de novo the di s t r i ctcourt ’ s deni al of the B urr el l s ’ m ot i on t o decl ar e the tr i bal cour t ’ s deci s i on “nul l and voi d. ” See Bi r d v. G l aci erE l ec. C oop. I nc. , 255 F. 3d 1126, 1140- 41 ( 9t h C i r . 2001) ( appl y i ng de novo r evi ew t o exami ne w hether“al l eged due p roc ess v iolati o n s p rec lud ed the d istri ct co u rt ’s gra n t of co m ity. . . to the tr ibal co u rt ju d g m e n t” ). I V. DI S CU S S I ON T he thr es hol d i s s ue on appe al i s w hetheranygr ounds exi s tthatw oul d pr eventus-14-

fr om gi vi ng pr ecl us i ve ef fec torot herw i s e r ecogni zi ng the tr i bal cour t ’ s s over ei gn i m m uni tydeci s i on. W e bel i eve tw o gr ounds r equi r e cons i der at i on i n t hi s cas e: ( 1) l ack of su b jec t m a tter ju risd ictio n ; an d (2 ) d e n ial o f d u e p ro c e ss , inc lu d in g w h e th e r th e B u rre lls enj oy ed a “ ful l and fa i roppor tuni t yt o l i t i gat e” thei rcl ai m s underthe doctr i ne of co ll ateral estop p el. S ee M ac arthu r v. S an Ju an C o u n ty , 3 0 9 F . 3 d 1 2 1 6 , 1 2 2 5 (10 th C ir . 2002) ( s t at i ng t hatt hi s courti s “unw i l l i ng t o enfor ce j udgm ent s of tr i bal cour t s act i ng bey ond thei rauthor i t y ”) ; W i l s on v. M ar chi ngt on, 127 F. 3d 805, 807 ( 9th C i r . 1997) ( ci t ed w i th appr oval i n M aca r t hur ) ( hol di ng t hatfede r al cour t s s hal l nei t herr ecogni ze nor enfor ce tr i bal j udgm ent s i f “( 1) t he tr i bal cour tdi d nothave both per s onal and s ubj ect m at t erj ur i s di ct i on; or( 2) t he def endantw as notaff

or ded due pr oces s of l aw ”) ; R y an v. C i tyof Shaw nee, 13 F. 3d 345, 348 n. 2 ( 10t h C i r . 1993) ( not i ng that“‘ [c] ol l at er al es t oppel cannotappl yw hen the part yagai ns tw hom the ea r l i erdeci s i on i s as s ert ed di d nothave a “ful l and fa i roppor tuni t y ” t o l i t i gat e thati s s ue i n t he ea r l i ercas e’ ”) ( i nt ernal ci t at i on o m itted). A . Tri balC our tJur is di ct i on “Tri bal court s have r epea t edl ybeen r ecogni zed a s appr opr i at e forum s forthe excl us i ve adj udi cat i on of di s put es aff ect i ng i m por t antper s onal and pr oper t yi nt er es t s of both I ndi ans and non- I ndi ans . ” Sant a C l ar a Puebl o v. M art i nez, 436 U . S. 49, 65- 66 ( 1978) ( i nt ernal ci t at i ons om i t t ed) ; s ee M ont ana v. U ni t ed St at es , 450 U . S. 544, 566 (1 9 8 1 ) (d e ter m in in g th a t In d ian trib e s p o ss e ss in h e re n t au th o rityto e x e rc ise c iv il ju risd ictio n o v e r “ n o n m e m b e rs w h o e n ter c o n se n su a l re latio n sh ip s w ith th e trib e o r its-15-

m ember s , t hr ough . . . contr act s , l eas es , orot herarr angement s ” and “ overthe conduc tof n o n - I n d i a n s o n f

e e l a n d s wi t h i n i t s r e s e r v a t i o n wh e n th a tc o n d u c tth r e a t e n s o rh a s s o me di r ecteff ecton t he pol i t i cal i nt egr i ty , the ec onom i c s ecur i t y , orthe hea l t h orw el far e of th e trib e ” ); E n lo w v . M o o re , 1 3 4 F .3 d 9 9 3 , 9 9 6 (1 0 th C ir. 1 9 9 8 ) (s tatin g th a t “c iv il ju risd ictio n o v e r n o n -In d ian s o n re se rv a tio n lan d s ‘p re su m p tiv e lylies in th e trib a l co u rts unl es s aff

i r m at i vel yl i m i t ed bya s peci fi c tr eatypr ovi s i on orfede r al s t atut e’ ”) ( ci t at i on o m itted). T he Supr eme C our t , ci t i ng t he pr om ot i on of tr i bal s el f- governm entand pr i nci pl es of co m i ty(as op po sed t o a jur i sdi ct i on al prer equ i si t e), has requir ed li t i gan t s t o ex hau st thei rt r i bal courtr emedi es befor e a di s t r i ctcour tm ayeval uat e the exi s t ence of a tr i bal cour t ’ s j ur i s di ct i on. I ow a M ut . , 480 U . S. at15- 16; s ee T exac o, I nc. v. Z ah, 5 F. 3d 1374, 1378 ( 10th C i r . 1993) ( not i ng t hat“[w ] hen the ac t i vi t yati s s ue ar i s es on t he r es ervat i on, [exha us t i on] pol i ci es al m os tal w ay s di ct at e thatthe part i es exhaus tthei rtr i bal r emedi es b ef o re reso rt ing to a f

ed era l fo rum ”); S m ith v . M o ff ett , 9 4 7 F . 2 d 4 4 2 , 4 4 4 (10 th C ir . 1991) ( s t at i ng t hatappl i cat i on of the exha us t i on r equi r ementdoes notdepend on the exi s t ence of a pe ndi ng act i on i n a tr i bal cour t ) . T hi s exhaus t i on pol i cypr ovi des a tr i bal cour tthe fi r s toppor tuni t yt o exami ne i t s ow n j ur i s di ct i on, buti s s ubj ectt o t he fol l ow i ng e x c e p tio n s: (1 ) “ w h e re a n a ss e rtio n o f trib a l ju risd ictio n ‘is m o tiv a ted b ya d e sire to har as s ori s conduct ed i n bad fa i t h, ’ ” N at ’ l Far m er s , 471 U . S. at857 n. 21 ( i nt ernal ci t at i on om i t t ed); (2) “w here the [tr i bal court ] act i on i s pat entl yviol at i ve o f exp res s j ur i s di ct i onal pr ohi bi t i ons , ” i d. ; ( 3) “w her e exha us t i on w oul d be fut i l e bec aus e of the l ack-16-

of an a dequat e oppor tuni t yt o chal l enge the [tr i bal ] cour t ’ s j ur i s di ct i on, ” i d. ; ( 4) “[w ] hen .

. . i ti s pl ai n t hatno fede r al gr antpr ovi des fortr i bal governance of nonm ember s ’ conduct o n land co v ere d b y[th e m ain ru le estab li sh ed in M o n tana v . U n it ed S tat es],” S tr ate v . A -1 C o n tr s. , 5 2 0 U . S . 4 3 8 , 4 5 9 n . 1 4 (19 9 7 ); o r (5) itis othe rw ise clea r th at th e tri b al co u rt l acks j ur i s di ct i on s o t hatt he exha us t i on r equi r ement“‘ w oul d s erve no purpos e othert han d e la y ,’” N e v a d a v . H ic k s , 5 3 3 U .S . 3 5 3 , 3 6 9 (2 0 0 1 ) ( in te rn a l c ita tio n o m itte d ). A lleg a tio n s o f

lo c a l b ias a n d trib a l co u rt in c o m p e ten c e , h o w e v e r, ar e n o t ex c e p tio n s to th e e x h a u s tio n re q u ir e m e n t. I o w a M u t., 4 8 0 U .S . a t 1 9 . A ft erexhaus t i on i s compl et ed, l i t i gant s m ays eek f eder al cour tr evi ew of a tr i bal c ou r t ’ s rul i ng t ha ti tha d j ur i s di c t i on . I owa M ut . , 48 0 U. S. a t19 ; N a t ’ l Fa r mer s , 47 1 U. S. at853. B ut“[u] nl es s t he di s t r i ctcour tfi nds the tr i bal cour tl acke d j ur i s di ct i on or w i thhol ds comi t yfors om e otherval i d r eas on, i tm us tenfor ce the tr i bal cour tj udgm ent w i thoutr econs i der i ng i s s ues deci ded bythe tr i bal cour t . ” A T & T C orp. v. C oeurD ’ A l ene T ri b e, 29 5 F . 3 d 8 9 9 , 9 0 5 (9th C ir . 2 0 0 2 ) (cit ing Iow a M u t. , 4 8 0 U . S . at 19 ). T he B ur r el l s neveracc ept ed the di s t r i ctcour t ’ s i nvi t at i on t o chal l enge the tr i bal cour t ’ s j ur i s di ct i on. O n appea l , t he B urr el l s s t i l l fai l t o cons t ructa cl earar gum ent chal l engi ng t he tr i bal court ’ s j ur i s di ct i on overthei rcl ai m s . T he onl yar gum enti n t he B urr el l s ’ fi l i ngs befor e the di s t r i ctcour toron appea l thatcoul d be cons t rued as an obj ect i on t o t he tr i bal court ’ s j ur i s di ct i onal author i t yi s thei rcl ai m thatthe pr ovi s i ons of6 T h e re c o rd re f lec ts th a t th e B u rre lls a d d re ss e d th e trib a l co u rt’s ju risd ictio n to a d ju d ica te c iv il righ ts c laim s in th e ir f irst f e d e ra l ca se . N e v e rth e les s, th e yf a iled to s quar el yr ai s e the i s s ue i n t hi s cas e. I ns t ead, theyhave mer el ys ugges t ed thatthe di s tr i ct c o u rt e rr e d in th e f

ir s t c a s e th e yf

ile d b yre q u ir in g th e m to e x h a u s t th e irtr ib a l r e m e d ie s . I n s uppor tof thatcont ent i on, t heynot e thatthei rcas e i nvol ves a fe der al l eas e and c o n s t i tu t i o n a l t o r t s . No t i c e a b l ya b s e n tf r o m th e Bu r r e l l s ’ b r i e f

s i s c i t a t i o n t o th e S u p r e me C our t ’ s deci s i on i n N evada v. H i cks , w hi ch hel d t hat“tr i bal cour t s cannotent ert ai n § 1983 s ui t s . ” 533 U . S. at369. W hethertr i bal cour t s pos s es s j ur i s di ct i on t o adj udi cat e § 1 9 8 1 a n d § 1 9 8 5 c laim s a p p e a r to b e iss u e s o f f irst im p re ss io n . B u t sin c e th e B u rre lls h a v e n o t r a is e d th e s e is s u e s , w e w ill n o t a d d re s s th e m a t th is tim e . -17- the B IA lease req u ir ed arb itrati o n o f th eir da m ag e c lai m s b ef o re the S ec retaryo f In teri o r. 6 W ith re g a rd to th e ir c o n ten tio n th a t th e B IA lea se re q u ire d a rb itratio n o f th e ir damage cl ai m s , t he B ur r el l s ar gue thatl anguage i n t he B I A l eas e and i t s r efe r ence t o 25 C . F . R . § 1 3 1 , tog ethe r w ith 2 5 U . S . C . § 2 2 9 , o p era te as a w aive r of the P u eb lo’s s over ei gn i m m uni t yand r equi r e arbi t r at i on of thei rdamage cl ai m s bythe Secr et aryof the Interior. A p lt . B r. at 23 -25 , 3 0 . In su p p o rt , the B u rrell s cit e the S u p rem e C o u rt ’s deci s i on i n C & L E nt erpr i s es , I ncorpor at ed v. C i t i zen Bank Pot aw at om i I ndi an Tri be of O k lah o m a , 5 3 2 U .S . 4 1 1 , 4 1 4 (2 0 0 1 ), w h ich h e ld th a t an In d ian trib e ’s a g re e m e n t to arbi tr at e di s put es and t o enfor ce a rbi t r al aw ar ds i n s t at e courtw ai ved the tr i be’ s s over ei gn i m m uni tyi n a s t at e courtact i on t o enfor ce a n arbi t r al aw ar d. W e conc l ude thatthe B u rre lls f

a il t o d e m o n stra te th a t an a g re e m e n t to a rb itrate e x iste d o r th a t an ya p p lica b le f e d e ra l la w re q u ir e d a rb itr a tio n in th is in s ta n c e . Fi r s t , t he B ur r el l s cl ai m t hatthe B I A l eas e cont ai ns a pr ovi s i on r equi r i ng a rb itr a tio n b e f

o re th e S e c re ta ry o f

th e In te ri o r p u rs u a n t to “ th e o ld ” 2 5 C .F .R . § 1 3 1 . W hi l e the l eas e r efe r ence s t hatr egul at i on, A pp. at123, the por t i ons of thatr egul at i on-18-

c i t e d b yth e Bu r r e l l s i n t h e i ra p p e l l a t e b r i e f d o n o te v e n me n t i o n a rb i t r a t i o n . F u r t h e r , we o b serv e tha t th e P u eb lo an d the in d ividu al tri b al of ficials po inted o u t t o the d istri ct co u rt that25 C . F. R . § 131 has been r epea l ed, that25 C . F. R . § 162 now deal s w i t h I ndi an l eas es , and that25 C . F. R . § 162 does notcont ai n a pr ovi s i on r equi r i ng arbi t r at i on. I d. at 17 8. E ven i n the B urr el l s’ fi rs tfede ral act i on , the d i stri ctcou rtrej ect ed the B urr el l s’ cl ai m t hat25 C . F. R . § 131 w as a j ur i s di ct i onal pr ohi bi t i on t o t r i bal cour tauthor i t y . I d. at 2 5 0 . S e c o n d , th e B u rr e lls c ite p a ra g ra p h s e v e n o f th e le a s e , e n title d “ R e s e rv a tio n s ,” w hich st at es: I ti s under s t ood and agr eed thatthe l es s orr es erves the r i ghtt o m ake oi l and gas l eas es , gr antr i ght s of w ayand otherl egal gr ant s , on t he pr emi s es cover ed byt hi s l eas e and thati n events uch a l eas e orgr anti s m ade, the l es s ee he r eunders hal l be ent i t l ed t o damages forthe ac tual l os s s us t ai ned by hi m on acc ountof s ai d l eas e orgr ant , and t o not hi ng m or e. I ti s fur t her u n d e rsto o d th a t i n the ev ent of a dis put e betw een the l es s ee he r eunderand the l es s ee orper m i t t ee unde rany oi land gas l eas e, r ight

- of

- w ay, orother gr ant , as t o the am ountof

s uch actualdam ages the m at t erw i l lbe r ef er r ed t o the Sec r etar

y w ho s hal lbe the s ol e and f i nalj udge as t o the am ountof the s ai d dam ages . A pp. at124 ( emphasi s added) . T hi s par agr aph, how ever , r el at es t o di s put es betw een the B urr el l s and l es s ees underan oi l and gas l eas e, r i ght - of- w ay , orot hergr ant–notdi s put es b e tw e e n th e B u rr e lls a n d th e P u e b lo . A p p . B r. a t 1 7 . T hir d, t he B urr el l s r el yon 25 U . S . C . § 2 29 , w hich st at es: If a n yIn d ian , b e lo n g in g to a n ytrib e in a m ityw ith th e U n ited S tate s, sh a ll, w i thi n t he I ndi an countr y , t ake ordes t r oythe pr oper t yof anyper s on l aw ful l yw i t hi n s uch countr y , ors hal l pas s fr om I ndi an countr yi nt o any St at e orT err i t or yi nhabi t ed byci t i zens of the U ni t ed St at es , and ther e t ake,-19-

s t eal , ordes t r oy , anyhor s e, orot herpr oper t ybel ongi ng t o anyci t i zen or i nhabi t antof the U ni t ed St at es , s uch ci t i zen ori nhabi t ant , hi s r epr es ent at i ve, a tto rn e y , o r a g e n t, m a ym a k e a p p lica tio n to th e p ro p e r su p e rin ten d e n t, ag en t, o r sub ag en t, w h o , u p o n b eing fu rnish ed w ith the n ec essa ry document s and pr oofs , s hal l , underthe di r ect i on of the Pr es i dent , m ake appl i cat i on t o t he nat i on ort r i be t o w hi ch s uch I ndi an s hal l bel ong, for s at i s fac t i on; and i f s uch nat i on ortr i be s hal l negl ectorr efus e t o m ake s at i s fac t i on, i n a r eas onabl e t i m e notexce edi ng tw el ve mont hs , s uch s uper i nt endent , agent , ors ubagents hal l m ake r eturn of hi s doi ngs t o t he C om m i s s i onerof I ndi an A ffa i r s , thats uch furt hers t eps m aybe t aken a s s hal l be pr oper , i n t he opi ni on of the Pr es i dent , t o obt ai n s at i s fac t i on forthe i n j u r y. 2 5 U .S .C . § 2 2 9 . T h is a rg u m e n t w a s n o t p re se n ted to th e d istric t co u rt, an d it i s w e lls e ttle d th a t th is c o u rt g e n e ra lly d o e s n o t r e v ie w m a tte rs ra is e d f o r t h e f ir s t tim e o n a p p e a l. See, e. g. , T i l l m an ex r el . E s t at e of Ti l l m an v. C amel otM us i c, I nc. , 408 F. 3d 1300, 1307 (1 0 th C ir. 2 0 0 5 ). In a n ye v e n t, th is s tatu te d o e s n o t es tab lish th a t th e P u e b lo w a iv e d its s over ei gn i m m uni t ybyagr eei ng t o arbi t r at e di s put es overthe B I A l eas e, ther eby d e p ri v in g th e tr ib a l c o u rt o f ju ri s d ic tio n . L as t l y , t he B ur r el l s poi ntoutthattheyw r ot e t o t he A r ea D i r ect orof the B I A on Ju n e 2 2 , 1 9 9 8 , d e m a n d in g a ll th e ir rig h ts u n d e r th e lea se . T h e B u rre lls c laim th a t th is gener al demand encompass ed a r eques tform andat oryarbi t r at i on. T hi s ar gum ent i ncorr ect l yas s um es t hatt he B I A l eas e cont ai ned a r i ghtt o arbi t r at i on. E ven i f the B urr el l s coul d s om ehow ar gue thatthe Secr et aryof I nt er i orfai l ed t o aff or d t hem arbi tr at i on, t heyw ai ved thi s ar gum entbeca us e theynevers oughtfede r al r evi ew of the I B I A ’ s deci s i on t o t erm i nat e the l eas e. In su m , w h ile la c k o f

su b jec t m a tter ju risd ictio n is a g ro u n d f o r re f u sin g to7 T h e c a c iq u e a p p e a rs to b e th e le a d e r o f th e P u e b lo th a t is a p p o in te d f o r l if e . 8 T he B urr el l s pres um e t hat no t ranscr i pts of the t w o d ay s of he ari ng s exi stbecau se the f ir st tri b al j u d g e ign o red req u ests fo r co p ies o f th e tap es f rom the h ea ri n g s. A p lt . B r. a t 2 2 . -20- rec o g n ize the tr ibal co u rt ’s so v ere ign im m u n ityd ec isi o n , w e a g ree w ith the d istri ct co u rt th a t th e B u rre lls f

a iled to a ss e rt a n in tellig ib le o r o th e rw ise m e rito rio u s a rg u m e n t o n th is i s s ue. B . C ollater al Est op

pel-D ue P rocess C on si derati on s T he B ur r el l s focus m os tof thei rat t ent i on on an al l eged l ack of fai r nes s dur i ng t he p ro c e e d in g s b e f

o re th e trib a l co u rt. T h e B u rre lls m a in tain th a t th e trib a l co u rt re f u se d to all o w d isco v eryp ertaining to the tr ibal co u n cil ’s reco rds o f it s m ee ti n g s; th e P u eb lo’s form of governm ent , i ncl udi ng t he s epar at i on of pow er s betw een the tr i bal counci l , tr i bal offi ci al s , and the ca ci que thatappoi nt s them; the tr i bal cour t ’ s code of l aw s ; and the 7 exi s t ence of a tr i bal courts y s t em base d on pr i nci pl es of sta re d e c isis . A p lt. B r. a t 1 9 . T he B ur r el l s as s ertt hatt he Puebl o has a corrupt , t ot al i t ar i an form of governm entthat l acks a r egul arcode of

l aw s and al l ow s tr i bal j udges t o s erve ent i r el yatthe w hi m of tr i bal offi ci al s . T he B ur r el l s poi ntoutt hatthe fi r s ttr i bal j udge fa i l ed t o m ake a nyrul i ngs for a lm o st f o u r y e a rs, a n d th e ya ss e rt th a t th e se c o n d trib a l ju d g e a c ted u p o n a n in c o m p lete recor d, i gn ored t heirm oti on s, and si m plyi ssued a o ne-pag e order di sm i ssi ng theircase

8 o n so v e re ig n im m u n ityg ro u n d s. F in a lly , the B u rre lls a rg u e th a t th e yw e re e n tit led toW e n o t e t h a ta to n e p o i n ti n t h e i rb r i e f , th e Bur r e l l s a s k u s t o o v e r ru l e th e S u p r e me 9 C our t ’ s deci s i on i n Sant a C l ar a Puebl o v. M art i nez. T he B u rrell s m ai nt ai n thatM art i nez su b jec ts U n ited S tate s c iti z e n s to “ w id e ra n g in g v io latio n s o f th e ir b a sic c o n stitu tio n a l rig h ts by tr i bal offi ci al s . ” I n M ar t i nez, t he Supr eme Court l i m i t ed fede r al r el i ef underT i t l e I of the I ndi an C i vi l R i ght s A ctof 1968 (“IC R A ”), 25 U . S. C . §§ 1301- 1303, t o a w r i tof habe as c o rp u s . 4 3 6 U .S . a t 6 9 -7 0 . N e e d le s s to s a y , w e c a n n o t o v e rr u le th e S u p re m e C o u rt . -21- bas i c due pr oces s r i ght s , i ncl udi ng r i ght s t o a fa i rhear i ng and an i m par t i al tr i bal j udge. 9 T h eyb eli ev e tha t th e d istri ct co u rth ad a re sp o n sibil ityto rev iew the tri b al co u rt ’s handl i ng of thei rcas e bec aus e i ti nvol ves a di s put e overa fe der al l eas e and a l l eged v io la tio n s o f

c iv il r ig h ts . In d e n y in g th e B u rr e lls ’ m o tio n to d e c la re th e tr ib a l c o u rt d e c is io n “ n u ll a n d v o id ,” the di s tr i ctcour tobs erved thatt he N i nth C i r cui t , fol l ow i ng pr i nci pl es of comi t yut i l i zed forr ecogni t i on of for ei gn j udgm ent s , r efus es t o enfor ce tr i bal cour tj udgm ent s i f the tr i bal cour tdeni ed a l i t i gantdue pr oces s . A pp. at197 ( ci t i ng A T & T C orp. , 295 F. 3d 899; B i r d, 2 5 5 F .3 d 1 1 3 6 ). T h e d istric t co u rt, h o w e v e r, ru led th a t a f e d e ra l co u rt’s a u th o rityto rea d jud icate issue s reso lved in tr ibal co u rtb ec au se o f a d u e p roc ess f ail u re w as c o n tr ary to the S u p rem e C o u rt ’s de cisi o n s in Io w a M u tual an d N ati o n al F arm ers. I d . at 19 8 . In the al t ernat i ve, t he di s t r i ctcourtr eac hed the mer i t s of the B urr el l s ’ ar gum entand rul ed thattheyw er e af

for ded s uffi ci entdue pr oces s . I d. T he di s t r i ctcour tnot ed thatthe tr i bal cour tpr ovi ded the B ur r el l s t w o day s of hea r i ngs , and s t at ed thattheyw er e notdepr i ved of due pr oces s m er el ybeca us e the tr i bal cour trul ed on s over ei gn i m m uni t yw i t hout ru lin g o n th e B u rr e lls ’ p e n d in g m o tio n s . Id . W e di s agr ee w i t h t he di s t r i ctcour t ’ s concl us i on thatthe B urr el l s coul d not-22-

c h a l l e n g e t h e t r i b a l c o u r t ’ s j u d g me n tb a s e d o n d u e p r o c e s s c o n s i d e r a t i o n s . Th e S u p r e me C ou rt ’s decis i on s i n Iow a M utual and N at i on al F arm ers do no tadd res s due p rocess ; r ather , theyhol d t hatpr i nci pl es of comi t yr equi r e a f eder al cour tt o gi ve a tr i bal cour tt he fi r s toppor tuni t yt o det erm i ne i t s ow n j ur i s di ct i on, s ubj ectt o l at err evi ew bya fe der al cour t . I ow a M ut . , 480 U . S. at19; N at i onal Far m er s , 471 U . S. at857. H er e, w e conc l ude thatbot h pr i nci pl es of comi t yappl i cabl e t o t he r ecogni t i on of for ei gn j udgm ent s , and the c o llate ra l es to p p e l d o c trin e ’s r e q u ire m e n t th a t a litig a n t h a v e a f u ll an d f a ir o p p o rtu n ityto litig a te a n is s u e , a re re le v a n t to th e c a s e a t h a n d . I n M aca r t hurv. San J uan C ount y , w e ci t ed the N i nth C i r cui t ’ s deci s i on i n W i l s on v. M ar chi ngt on, w hi ch found tw o m andat orygr ounds forr efus i ng t o r ecogni ze a nd e n f o rc e a trib a l co u rt ju d g m e n t. M a c a rth u r, 3 0 9 F .3 d a t 1 2 2 5 . S p e c if ica lly , the N in th C i r cui thel d, ci t i ng pr i nci pl es of comi t y , thata fe der al cour ts houl d nei t herr ecogni ze nor enfor ce a tr i bal j udgm enti f the tr i bal cour tl acke d per s onal ors ubj ectm at t erj ur i s di ct i on, o ri f th e d e f e n d a n tw a s d e n i e d d u e p r o c e s s o f l a w . Ma r c h i n g t o n , 1 2 7 F . 3 d a t8 1 0 . We s till f in d M a rc h in g to n in s tru c tiv e . A s t o the due process ground , the N i nth C i rcui tdeterm i ned that due p rocess encompas s ed thatt her e has been opportuni t yfora ful l and fa i rtr i al befor e an i m par t i al tr i bunal t hatconduct s t he tr i al upon r egul arpr ocee di ngs aft erpr opers ervi ce orvol unt aryappea r ance of the def endant , and thatther e i s no s how i ng of p re ju d ic e in th e tr ib a l c o u rt o r i n th e s y s te m o f g o v e rn in g la w s . F u rt h e r, . . . evi dence “thatt he j udi ci aryw as dom i nat ed bythe pol i t i cal br anche s of g o v e rn m e n t o r b ya n o p p o sin g lit ig a n t, or th a t a p a rtyw a s u n a b le to o b tain cou nsel , or secure docu m ents or at t end ance o f w i t nesses, or t o h ave ac cess-23-

t o appea l orr evi ew , w oul d s uppor ta conc l us i on thatthe l egal s y s t em w as o n e w h o s e ju d g m e n ts a re n o t e n title d to re c o g n itio n .” I d. at811 ( ci t i ng H i l t on v. G uy ot , 159 U . S. 113, 202- 03 ( 1895) ; R es t at ement( T hi r d) of For ei gn R el at i ons L aw of the U ni t ed St at es § 482 & cmt . b ( 1986) ) ; s ee a l s o B i r d, 255 F . 3 d at 11 5 2 (ap p ly ing M arc h ing ton to h o ld tha t a closin g arg u m en t i n tr ibal co u rt o f f e n d e d d u e p ro c e ss ). W h ile d e sc rib in g th e se b a sic d u e p ro c e ss ten e ts, th e N in th C irc u it c a u tio n e d th a t co m ityd id n o t re q u ire “ a trib e [ to ] u til ize ju d icia l p ro c e d u re s id e n tica l to th o se u se d in th e U n ited S tate s C o u rts” a n d th a t f e d e ra l co u rts s h o u ld “ b e c a re f u l to r es pecttr i bal j ur i s prudence al ong w i t h t he s peci al cus t om s and pr act i cal l i m i t at i ons of tr ib a l c o u rt s y s te m s .” Id . A ddi t i onal l y , w e obs erve thatourcol l at er al es t oppel j ur i s prudence i s cons i s t ent w i th the not i on t hatdue pr oces s conce r ns ar e r el evanti n as s es s i ng w hethert o r ecogni ze a tr i bal courtj udgm ent . See C r ocog C o. v. R eeve s , 992 F. 2d 267, 270 ( 10t h C i r . 1993) (sta tin g th a t d u e p ro c e ss re q u ire s th a t a p a rtyh a v e a f u ll an d f a ir o p p o rtu n ityto lit ig a te its c a s e ) ( c itin g K re m e r v . C h e m . C o n s tr . C o rp ., 4 5 6 U .S . 4 6 1 , 4 8 2 -8 3 & n .2 4 (1 9 8 2 )) . C ol l at er al es t oppel , or , as i ti s oft en know n, i s s ue pr ecl us i on, “bar s a part yfr om r el i t i gat i ng an i s s ue once i thas s uffe r ed an a dver s e det erm i nat i on on t he i s s ue, even i f the i s s ue ar i s es w hen the part yi s pur s ui ng ordefe ndi ng agai ns ta di ffe r entcl ai m . ” Park L ake R e s., L td . L iab . C o . v . U .S . D e p ’t o f A g ric ., 3 7 8 F .3 d 1 1 3 2 , 1 1 3 6 (1 0 th C ir. 2 0 0 4 ). In th is ci rcui t , app l i cat i on of is sue precl usi on requi res fou r el em ents : ( 1) t he i s s ue pr evi ous l ydeci ded i s i dent i cal w i t h t he one pr es ent ed i n t he act i on i n ques t i on, ( 2) t he pr i oract i on has been f i nal l yadj udi cat ed on the10 E l em ents on e and t hree are cl earl ysat i sfi ed in this case. E l em ent tw o is al so

s at i s fi ed bec aus e a di s m i s s al forl ack of j ur i s di ct i on, s uch as s over ei gn i m m uni t y , i s an exce pt i on t o t he fi nal adj udi cat i on on t he mer i t s r equi r ement . See Park L ake, 378 F. 3d at 1136 ( i nt ernal ci t at i ons and quot at i ons om i t t ed) ( s t at i ng that , al t hough a di s m i s s al on j ur i s di ct i onal gr ounds i s nota fi nal adj udi cat i on on t he mer i t s , “di s m i s s al s forl ack of j ur i s di ct i on pr ecl ude r el i t i gat i on of the i s s ues det erm i ned i n rul i ng on t he j ur i s di ct i on q u e s tio n ” ).

-24- m e rits, (3 ) th e p a rtya g a in st w h o m th e d o c trin e is in v o k e d w a s a p a rty , o r in p ri v ityw ith a p arty , to the p ri o r ad jud icati o n , an d (4) the p art y ag ainst w hom the doctr i ne is r ais ed had a f ul land f ai roppor t uni t

y t o l i t igat e the is s ue i n the pr i oract i on . D o d g e v . C o tter C o rp ., 2 0 3 F .3 d 1 1 9 0 , 1 1 9 8 (1 0 th C ir. 2 0 0 0 ) (cita tio n o m itt e d ) (e m p h a sis ad d ed ). 10 A s t o t he “‘ i nqui r yi nt o w hethera part yhad a f ul l and fa i roppor tuni t yt o l i t i gat e an i s s ue . . . [w e] focus on w hethert her e w er e s i gni fi cantpr ocedur al l i m i t at i ons i n t he pr i or pr ocee di ng, w hethert he part yhad the i ncent i ve t o l i t i gat e ful l ythe i s s ue, orw hether ef fe cti v e li ti g ati o n w as li m it ed b ythe n ature o r relat ion sh ip o f th e p arti es.’” M ur dock v. U T E I ndi an Tri be of U i nt ah & O ur ayR es ervat i on, 975 F. 2d 683, 689 ( 10t h C i r . 1992) (in ter n a l cita tio n o m itt e d ); se e a lso B e ll v . D ill a rd D e p ’t S to re s, 8 5 F .3 d 1 4 5 1 , 1 4 5 6 (1 0 th C ir. 1 9 9 6 ) (listin g se v e ra l au th o rities f o r th e p ro p o sitio n th a t a la c k o f o p p o rtu n ityto appea l m ayw ei gh agai ns tfi ndi ng t hata part yhad a f ul l and fa i roppor tuni t yt o l i t i gat e an is s u e ). U ndert he ci r cumst ance s pr es enti n t hi s cas e, w e conc l ude thatboth pr i nci pl es of-25-

comi tyand the ful l and fa i roppor tuni t yt o l i t i gat e el ementof the col l at er al es t oppel doctr i ne w ei gh agai ns tr ecogni zi ng t he tr i bal cour t ’ s s over ei gn i m m uni t ydeci s i on. A s an i ni t i al m at t er , w e not e thatt he cl os e r el at i ons hi p betw een the tr i bal cour t , the Puebl o, and the i ndi vi dual t r i bal offi ci al s caus es us t o car eful l ys crut i ni ze the tr i bal cour tpr ocee di ngs in th is c a s e . F ir st, the p roc ed u ral po sture lea d ing u p to the tr ibal co u rt ’s ruli n g g ives this co u rt paus e. A l though t he fi r s tt r i bal j udge conduc t ed tw o day s of evi dent i aryhear i ngs , he fai l ed t o m ake a nyrul i ngs on t he part i es ’ pendi ng m ot i ons aft erfoury ear s . T hi s pr ovi des so m e e v id e n c e th a t th e B u rre lls d id n o t h a v e a f o ru m to f u llya n d f

a irlylit ig a te th e ir cl ai m s . Fur t her , w hen the B ur r el l s r eturned t o t he tr i bal cour t , theyencount er ed a ne w tr i bal j udge w ho had notpr es i ded overthe tw o day s of hea r i ngs . W hetherthe new j udge had r evi ew ed orhad anyknow l edge of the t es t i m onyfr om thos e hea r i ngs i s uncl ear , but the re co rd re flec ts th at th e f ir st tri b al j u d g e n ev er resp o n d ed to the p arti es’ req u est fo r a tr ans cr i ptof the pr ocee di ngs . W i t houtanyfur t herhear i ngs orrul i ng on anyot her p e n d in g m o tio n s, th e se c o n d trib a l ju d g e iss u e d a o n e -p a g e o rd e r g ra n tin g th e P u e b lo s over ei gn i m m uni t y( and pr es um abl yext endi ng the Puebl o’ s i m m uni t yt o t he i ndi vi dual tr i bal offi ci al s ) , and di s m i s s ed the B urr el l s ’ cl ai m s . T hi s one- page or dercont ai ned no r efe r ence t o anyt es t i m onyfr om t he evi dent i aryhear i ng, orforthatm at t erany e x p la n a tio n o f

th e tr ib a l c o u rt ’s re a s o n in g . Second, w e ar e tr oubl ed byt he l ack of a tr i bal appel l at e courtt o r evi ew the s econd tr i bal j udge’ s deci s i on. A tone poi nti n t he l i t i gat i on, couns el forthe Puebl o and-26-

i ndi vi dual t r i bal offi ci al s s ugges t ed thatexhaus t i on w oul d notbe compl et e unt i l the B urr el l s pur s ued an a ppeal befor e the tr i bal counci l , pr es i ded overbythe governor . A pp. at204. C ouns el l at ercorr ect ed thats t at ement , not i ng thatw hen the tr i bal counci l cr eat ed th e “ C o n te m p o ra ry T ri b a l C o u rt ,” it d id n o t p ro v id e f o r a n ya p p e a l to th e tr ib a l c o u n c il. Id . N o t o n lyd o c o u n se l’s s tate m e n ts d e m o n stra te th e u n a v a ilab ili tyo f a n ya p p e llate r evi ew , theys hed l i ghton t he natur e of the r el at i ons hi p betw een the tr i bal cour tand the n a m e d d e f

e n d a n ts in th is a c tio n . I n r eac hi ng ourdeci s i on, w e emphas i ze thatfede r al cour t s ar e notthe gene r al appel l at e bodyfort r i bal court s . A s the Supr eme C our thas i ns t ruct ed, the fe der al pol i ci es pr om ot i ng t r i bal s el f- governm entand s el f- det erm i nat i on i ns t ructus t o pr ovi de gr eat d ef ere n ce to tr ibal co u rtsy stem s, their pra cti ce s, an d p roc ed u res. Se e, e.g., N at’l Far m er s , 471 U . S. at856. T hi s heed w e do nott ake l i ght l y . M or eover , w e fi r m l yr ej ect the B u rrell s’ po sit ion that the d istri ct co u rth ad a d u tyto m o n it o r th e p roc ee d ing s b ef o re th e trib a l co u rt. G i ven ourconcl us i on t hatt he tr i bal cour t ’ s deci s i on i s notent i t l ed t o r ecogni t i on u n d e r e ith e r p rin c ip les o f c o m ityo r c o llate ra l es to p p e l, w e p ro c e e d to a d d re ss th e m e rits of the s over ei gn i m m uni t yi s s ue. C . So v e re ig n Im m u n ity fo r th e P u e b lo “A s a m at t er of fede ral l aw , an Indian t ri be is subjectt o suiton l yw here C on gress has author i zed the s ui tort he tr i be has w ai ved i t s i m m uni t y . ” K i ow a Tri be of O kl a. v. M fg . T ec h s. , Inc . , 5 2 3 U . S . 7 5 1 , 7 5 4 (19 9 8 ). C o n g ress’s inten t t o ab rog ate a tr ibe’s11 T h e B u rre lls d o n o t ar g u e th a t C o n g re ss w a iv e d trib a l so v e re ig n im m u n ityf o r th e ir ci vil ri gh t s cl ai m s, and t herefore, w e do no treach t ho se quest i on s. -27- i m m un i tym ustbe u neq uivocal l yexp res sed, w hil e a t ri be’s w ai ver of it s i m m un i t ym ust be cl ear . C & L E nt er s . , I nc. , 532 U . S. at418. A g ain, th e o n lyarg u m en t th at th e B u rrell s raise to c h all en g e the P u eb lo’s so v e re ig n im m u n ityis th a t th e p ro v isio n s o f th e B IA lea se re q u ire d a rb itratio n o f th e ir d a m a g e c laim s b e f

o re th e S e c re tar yo f

th e In ter io r. H a v in g a lre a d yd e ter m in e d th a t th is

11 a rg u m e n t is w ith o u t m e ri t, w e c o n c lu d e th a t th e P u e b lo is e n title d to s o v e re ig n im m u n ity. D . C laim s A ga i nstthe Indivi du al Tri ba lO f f i ci als A n I ndi an tr i be’ s “s over ei gn i m m uni t ydoes notext end t o an off i ci al w hen the offi ci al i s act i ng as an i ndi vi dual orout s i de the s cope of thos e pow er s thathave be en d e le g a te d to h im .” T e n n e c o O il C o . v . S a c & F o x T ri b e o f In d ia n s , 7 2 5 F .2 d 5 7 2 , 5 7 6 n .1 ( 10th C i r . 1984) ( M cK ay , J . , concurr i ng) . T hus , “[w ] hen a c om pl ai ntal l eges thatthe n a m e d o f

f ice r d e f e n d a n ts h a v e a c ted o u tsid e th e a m o u n t o f a u th o rityth a t th e so v e re ig n is capa bl e of be s t ow i ng, an exc ept i on t o t he doctr i ne of s over ei gn i m m uni t yi s i nvoked. ” Id. at 57 4 ; see a lso B u rl ing ton N . R . C o . v . B lack fe et T ri b e, 92 4 F . 2 d 8 9 9 , 9 0 2 (9th C ir . 1991) ( s t at i ng t hata tr i be’ s i m m uni tyext ends t o offi ci al s “ac t i ng i n t hei rr epr es ent at i ve ca p ac ityan d w ith in the sco p e o f th eir va li d au tho ri ty ”). A cce pt i ng t he al l egat i ons i n the B urr el l s ’ compl ai ntas true, w e conc l ude thatt hey have s uffi ci ent l ypl ed thatt he i ndi vi dual tr i bal offi ci al s act ed out s i de of thei roffi ci al author i ty , and thus , ar e notent i t l ed t o s over ei gn i m m uni t y . T he ques t i on then r emai ns-28-

w hetherthe B ur r el l s ’ compl ai nts t at es a cl ai m forr el i ef pur s uantt o 42 U . S. C . §§ 1981, 1 9 8 3 , o r 1 9 8 5 , o r f

o r b re a c h o f

th e le a s e . Bot h p a r t i e s ha ve br i e fe d the mer i t s of the Bur r e l l s ’ c l a i ms u nd e rFe d. R. Ci v. P. 12( b) ( 6) . A tt hi s j unctur e, t he B ur r el l s ’ § 1983 and br eac h of l eas e cl ai m s m aybe di s pos ed of qui ckl y . Fi r s t , t he B ur r el l s ’ compl ai ntal l eges thatthe i ndi vi dual tr i bal offi ci al s act ed undercol orof tr i bal l aw , as oppos ed t o s t at e l aw . See A pp. at8 ( “The conductand omi s s i ons of the D efe ndant s compl ai ned of w er e comm i t t ed byper s ons ac ti n g u n d er c o lor o f tri b al l aw . ”); A p p . at 17 (“T h ese d ef en d an t tri b al of

ficials w ere cl othed undert r i bal author i t yatal l t i m es . . . . ”) . A § 1983 act i on i s unavai l abl e “f or persons al l eging de pri vati on of co nst i tuti on al ri gh t s und er col or of t ri bal l aw . ” R . J. W illia m s C o . v . F t. B e lk n a p H o u s . A u th ., 7 1 9 F .2 d 9 7 9 , 9 8 2 (9 th C ir . 1 9 8 3 ). W e al s o di s m i s s t he B ur r el l s ’ br eac h of l eas e cl ai m . T he I B I A t erm i nat ed the lea se in M a y2 0 0 0 , d e sp ite th e B u rre lls’ a lleg a tio n s th a t d isc rim in a tio n f ro m th e P u e b lo and i t s offi ci al s amount ed t o a cons t ruct i ve t erm i nat i on and br eac h of the l eas e. T he B urr el l s ’ fai l ur e t o s eek r evi ew of the I B I A ’ s fi nal deci s i on pr event s them from as s er t i ng a br eac h of l eas e cl ai m her e. See, e. g. , M cA l pi ne v. U ni t ed St at es , 112 F. 3d 1429, 1430 (1 0 th C ir . 1 9 9 7 ) ( re v ie w in g a n IB IA d e c is io n u n d e r t h e A d m in is tr a tiv e P ro c e d u re A c t, 5 U . S . C . § § 5 5 1 -70 6 ). L as t l y , w e expr es s no opi ni on as t o t he mer i t s of the B urr el l s ’ § 1981 and § 1985 cl ai m s agai ns tt he i ndi vi dual t r i bal offi ci al s . I ns t ead, w e r emand t hos e cl ai m s t o t he d is tr ic t c o u rt f

o r c o n s id e ra tio n in th e f ir s t in s ta n c e .-29-

A ccor di ngl y , w e R E V E R SE t he di s t r i ctcour t ’ s deci s i on t o gi ve pr ecl us i ve ef fec t t o the tr i bal court ’ s rul i ng and i t s s ubs equentdi s m i s s al of the B urr el l s ’ cl ai m s on t hat b a sis . H o w e v e r, w e D IS M IS S th e P u e b lo f ro m th is a c tio n b e c a u se it i s e n tit led to s o v e r e i g n i mmu n i t y , a n d DI S M I S S t h e Bu r r e l l s ’ § 1 9 8 3 a n d b r e a c h o f l e a s e c l a i ms a g a i n s tt h e i n d i v i d u a l t r i b a l o f f i c i a l s f o rf a i l u r e t o s t a t e a c l a i m. F i n a l l y , we RE M AND the B urr el l s ’ § 1981 and § 1985 cl ai m s agai ns tthe i ndi vi dual tr i bal offi ci al s forthe dis tri ctcou rtt o ad dress i n the fi rs ti nst ance. W e exp res s no o pini on on the m eri t s of t hese rem ai ning cl ai m s.B u rr e ll v. A rm ijo , 03- 2223

M c CO NNELL , C irc u it Ju d g e , co n c u rrin g in th e ju d g m e n t.

I a g re e w ith th e m a

jo rityth a t th e d istric t co u rt im p ro p e rlyg a v e p re c lu siv e e f f e c t to the tr i bal court ’ s j udgm ent . I w oul d r eac h t hi s concl us i on, how ever , on a much nar r ow er gr ound. I ns t ead of

deci di ng t hatt he courts y s t em of t he Sant a A na Puebl o fai l s t o pr ovi de a f u ll an d fa iro p p o rtu n ityto li ti g ate, I w o u ld rev erse o n the g rou n d that the tri b al co u rt l acke d j ur i s di ct i on t o hearfede r al ci vi l r i ght s cl ai m s br oughtunder42 U . S. C . § 1981 and § 1 9 8 5 . W e m a yc o n sid e r th e ju risd ictio n o f th e trib a l co u rt su a sp o n te , and i n thi s case w e have s tr ong r eas ons t o do s o. T h is case is essen ti all ya c ivil ri g h ts acti o n u n d er 4 2 U . S . C . § § 1 9 8 1 an d 1 9 8 5 . In N evada v . Hi cks , 533 U . S. 353, 366- 69 ( 2001) , the Supr eme C our tes t abl i s hed thata tr i bal cou rtcann ot ent ert ai n clai m s und er 42 U . S . C . § 1 98 3, and I s ee no reas on t o d i st i ng uis h the § 1983 cl ai m i n Hi cks fr om t he B urr el l s ’ § 1981 and § 1985 cl ai m s . ( C ouns el fort he P u eb lo es sen ti all yco n ce d ed as m u ch at ora l argu m en t. ) Itfo ll o w s tha t th e tri b al co u rt w a s n o t a “ c o u rt o f

c o m p e ten t ju risd ictio n ,” a n d its ru lin g is th e re f o re e n tit led n e ith e r to d e f e re n c e n o r t o p re c lu s iv e e f f e c t. See Io w a Mu t. In s. C o . v. L a P la n te , 480 U . S. 9, 19 ( 1987) ( “U nl es s a fe der al courtdet erm i nes thatthe Tri bal C our tl acke d j ur i s di ct i on, how ever , pr operdefe r ence t o t he tr i bal cour ts y s t em pre cl udes r el i t i gat i on of i s s ues r ai s ed b yth e L a P lan tes ’ b a d -f a ith c laim a n d re so lv e d in th e T rib a l C o u rts.” ); Montana v. U ni t ed Stat es , 4 4 0 U . S . 1 4 7 , 1 5 3 ( 1 9 7 9 ) ( n o t i n g th a tc o l l a t e r a l e s t o p p e l r e q u i r e s a d e c i s i o n b y a

“ c o u rt o f c o m p e ten t ju risd ictio n ” ); Hi l t on v. G uyot , 159 U . S. 113, 202- 03 ( 1895)-2-

( r equi r i ng t he s ame forcomi t y ) . A s the maj or i t ynot es , the B urr el l s chal l enged the j ur i s di ct i on of the tr i bal courti n t hei rfi r s tfede r al s ui tbuthave not“s quar el yr ai s e[d] t he i s s ue i n thi s cas e. ” O p. of B r i s coe, J . , at17 n. 6. T w o ques t i ons r emai n: w hetherw e may ra ise th e ju risd ictio n o f

th e trib a l co u rt su a sp o n te , and w hetherw e s houl d. T h ere is no co n tr o ll ing p rec ed en t on raisi n g the ju ri sd ict ion o f th e tri b al co u rts ua sp o n te , b u t th e b est co n clus ion is th at w e m ayd o so . A s a g en era l m att er, th is C o u rt d is f a v o rs e n f o rc in g ju d g m e n ts o f

tr ib a l c o u rt s th a t a c t w ith o u t ju ri s d ic tio n . M acArthurv. Sa n J u a n C o u n ty , 309 F. 3d 1216, 1225 ( 10th C i r . 2002) ( “W e ar e unw i l l i ng t o enfor ce j udgm ent s of tr i bal court s act i ng bey ond t hei rauthor i t y , es peci al l yw her e def endant s have a fe der al r i ght‘ t o be pr ot ect ed aga i ns tan unl aw ful exer ci s e of Tr i bal C our tj udi ci al pow er . ’ ” ( quot i ng N

at ’ lFar m ers U

ni on I ns . C os . v. C r ow Tri be , 471 U . S. 845, 851 (1 9 8 5 )); s ee al

s o W i l s on v. M ar chi ngt on , 127 F. 3d 805, 811 ( 9th C i r . 1997) ( cons i der i ng it n o t “d isc re tio n a ry ” b u t ra th e r “ a th re sh o ld in q u iry ” w h e th e r th e trib a l co u rt h a d su b jec tm a tte r j u ri s d ic tio n ). T h is C o u rt h a s n o t y e t d e c id e d w h e th e r a trib a l co u rt’s ju d g m e n t is e n tit led to pr ecl us i ve ef

fec tundert he Ful l Fai th and C r edi tC l aus e, U . S. C ons t . ar t . I V , §1; 28 U .S .C . § 1 7 3 8 , o r a s a m a tte r o f c o m ity. M

acArthur , 3 0 9 F .3 d a t 1 2 2 5 ; cf . Mar chi ngt on , 1 2 7 F .3 d a t 8 0 7 (c o n c lu d in g “ th a t th e p rin c ip les o f c o m ity , n o t f

u ll fa ith a n d c re d it, g o v e rn w h e th e r a d is tr ic t c o u rt s h o u ld re c o g n iz e a n d e n f o rc e a tr ib a l c o u rt ju d g m e n t” ). T h e m a jo rityu se s b o th a p p ro a c h e s. E ith e r w a y , itis a p p ro p ria te f o r a f e d e ra l co u rt to cons i derw hethert he courtt hatr ender ed the under l y i ng j udgm enthad j ur i s di ct i on t o do-3-

s o. I ti s we l l e s t a b l i s h e d t h a ta c o u r tma yr a i s e th e i s s u e o f p r e c l u s i o n o n i t s o wn m o tio n , in a p p ro p ri a te c a s e s . A riz o n a v . C a lif o rn ia , 530 U . S. 392, 412 ( 2000) ( al l ow i ng thatr es j udi cat a mi ghtbe r ai s ed s ua s pont e in “ sp e c ial c irc u m sta n c e s” ); P l autv. Spendthr i

f tFar m , I nc. , 5 1 4 U .S . 2 1 1 , 2 3 0 (1 9 9 5 ) (n o tin g “ th a t trial c o u rts m a yin ap p rop ri ate c ase s raise the res jud icata b ar o n their ow n m o ti o n ”); Sc h e re r v . E q u ita b le L if e A ssu ra n ce S o c’y , 3 4 7 F .3 d 3 9 4 , 3 9 8 n .4 (2 d C ir. 2 0 0 2 ) (n o tin g th a t “a c o u rt is f re e to raise [ res jud icata] su a sp o n te , even i f t he p art i es have seem i ng l yw ai ved i t , ” bu tal so n o ti n g that a c o u rth as “ n o o b li g ati o n to” a n d m ayev en h av e g o o d rea so n s n o t t o raise it ); Mow br ay v. C am er on C ount y, Texas , 274 F. 3d 269, 281- 82 ( 5th C i r . 2001) ( uphol di ng a d istric t co u rt’s d ism iss a l s ua s pont e o n re s ju d ica ta g ro u n d s); see al so C har l es A l an W r i ght , A r t hurR . M i l l er& E dw ar d H . C ooper , 18 Federal P ract i ce an d P rocedu re § 4405 ( 2d ed. 1990 & Supp. 2005) ( “[I ] thas become i ncr eas i ngl ycomm on t o r ai s e the q u e s tio n o f

p re c lu s io n o n th e c o u rt ’s o w n m o tio n .” ). I tw oul d s eem t o fol l ow t hata courtm aycons i derpr ecl us i on s ua s pont e to re ta in fede r al j ur i s di ct i on. W i t houta di s cr et i onarypow ert o r ai s e a tr i bal cour t ’ s j ur i s di ct i on su a sp o n te , t he fe der al courtcoul d be i n t he aw kw ar d pos i t i on of ac cedi ng t o t he ju d g m e n t o f

a c o u rt th a t se lf

-e v id e n tlylac k e d ju risd ictio n . Ju stic e re q u ire s n o t o n ly re c o g n izin g th e ju d g m e n ts o f c o u rts o f

c o m p e ten t ju risd ictio n b u t als o re f u sin g to r e c o g n i z e a j u d g m e n tt h a tm a n i f e s t l y l a c k s l e g a l v a l i d i t y. If w e a re d e a lin g h e re w ith c o m ity , rath e r th a n re s ju d ica ta o r c o llate ra l es to p p e l,-4-

th e a rg u m e n t is e v e n s tr o n g e r. “ [ I] n q u ir yin to ju ri s d ic tio n is a p a rt o f c o m ity a n a lysis ,” John v. B aker , 30 P. 3d 68, 72 n. 14 ( A l as ka 2001) , and a c our t“nee d notr ecogni ze a j udgm entof the courtof a f or ei gn s t at e i f . . . the courtthatr ender ed the j udgm entdi d not have j ur i s di ct i on of the s ubj ectm att erof the ac t i on. ” R es tat em ent ( Thi r d) of For ei gn R elat i ons Law § 4 8 2 (2 )(a ) (1 9 8 7 ) (in c lu d in g c a se c itatio n s to c o m itya n a ly sis o f trib a lc o u rt ju d g m e n ts). P u t sim p ly , lac k o f ju risd ictio n in a f

o re ig n c o u rt is a “ u n iv e rsa lly acc ept ed gr ound forr efus i ng t o r ecogni ze orenfor ce the j udgm entof a f or ei gn s t at e. ” R ecogni t i on and E nf

or cem ent of For ei gn Judgm ent

s : A nal ys is and P r opos ed Feder al S ta tu te § 6 cm t. a (A p r. 1 1 , 2 0 0 5 ). V e n e r a b l e d e c i s i o n s o f

t h e S u p r e m e C o u r ts u g g e s tth a ta c o u r tm a y a l w a ys cons i derthe j ur i s di ct i on of a f or ei gn cour ti n cas es w her e a pa r t ys eeks r ecogni t i on of the f o re ig n ju d g m e n t a s a m a tte r o f c o m ity. See Thom

ps on v. W

hi tm an , 8 5 U .S . (1 8 W a ll.) 4 5 7 , 4 6 1 (1 8 7 3 ) (“ [ A ]s to a f o re ig n ju d g m e n t itis p e rf e c tlyw e ll se ttl e d th a t th e in q u iryis al w ay s open, w hethert he courtbyw hi ch i tw as r ender ed had j ur i s di ct i on of the per s on or th e th in g .”); R o se v . Him e ly , 8 U .S . (4 C ra n c h ) 2 4 1 , 2 6 8 -6 9 (1 8 0 8 ) ( M a rs h a ll, C .J .) ( concl udi ng t hatas a mat t erof pr i nci pl e the per s onal and s ubj ect - m att erj ur i s di ct i on of a for ei gn court“maybe cons i der ed bythattr i bunal w hi ch i s t o deci de on the ef fec tof the s e n te n c e ” ). T he N i nt h C i r cui thas gone s o faras t o hol d t hatfede r al cour t s have a n obl i gat i on t o det erm i ne w hethert he tr i bal cour thad j ur i s di ct i on befor e ac cor di ng i t s j udgm ent p re c lu s iv e e f

f e c t a s a m a tte r o f

c o m ity. M

ar chi ngt on , 127 F. 3d at810- 11 ( “[F] eder al-5-

cour t s m us tnei therr ecogni ze norenfor ce tr i bal j udgm ent s i f . . . the tr i bal cour tdi d not h a v e b o th p e rso n a l an d su b jec t m a tter ju risd ictio n .”). W h e th e r su c h a n in q u iryis m a n d a to ry o r d is c re tio n a ry, h o w e v e r, s ua s pont e cons i der at i on appea r s t o be the ac cept ed pr act i ce: G ener al l yt he court s fee l fr ee t o exami ne the fa ctual bas i s of j ur i s di ct i on under

for ei gn l aw w i t houtcons i der i ng w hetherthe j ur i s di ct i onal ques t i on w as l i t i gat ed i n t he for ei gn cour t , orw hetheri tcoul d be r ai s ed i n a col l at er al at t ack on the j udgm enti n t he for ei gn countr y . U s ual l yno r eas on i s as s i gned fors uch r eexa m i nat i on of the for ei gn court ’ s j ur i s di ct i on. R o b e rt B . v o n M e h re n a n d M ic h a e l E . P a tte rs o n , R ecogni t i on and E nf or cem ent of For ei gn- C ountr

y Judgm ent

s i n the U

ni t ed Stat es , i n E nforcem ent of Foreign C ou ntr

y J u d g m e n ts 1 5 , 3 3 (R o b e rt B . v o n M e h re n e d ., 1 9 7 4 ); see al so C onf l i ct s of Law , For ei

gn J u d g m e n ts, B a sis o

f Ju ris d ictio n o

f Fo re ig n C o u rt D e ter m in e d b y Fo ru m ’s C o n c e

p ts , 34 V a. L . R ev. 956, 957 ( 1948) ( “[W ] antof j ur i s di ct i on of the courtoverthe part i es ort he su b ject m att er w il l al w ay s n eg ati v e the v ali d ityo f th e jud g m en t. ”). T h ere fo re, un d er a c o m itya n a ly sis , w e a t lea st m ay co n side r s ua s pont e w h e th e r th e trib a l co u rt h a d su b jec tm at t erj ur i s di ct i on. W h e th e r th e in q u iryis p re c lu sio n o r c o m ity , w e h a v e stro n g p ru d e n tial re a so n s to addr es s the j ur i s di ct i on of the tr i bal cour ti n t hi s cas e. Fi r s t , the tr i bal cour t ’ s j ur i s di ct i on t o hearcas es under§ 1981 and § 1985 i s a pur el yl egal ques t i on, r equi r i ng no fac tual d e v e lo p m e n t. See Russ el lv. SunA m er i ca Sec . , I nc. , 962 F. 2d 1169, 1172 ( 5th C i r . 1992) ( cons i der i ng r es j udi cat a on the court ’ s ow n m ot i on beca us e, “w her e al l of the r el evant fac t s ar e cont ai ned i n t he r ecor d befor e us and al l ar e uncontr over t ed, [a c our t ] m aynot-6-

i gnor e thei rl egal eff

ect , norm ay[i t ] decl i ne t o cons i derthe appl i cat i on of contr ol l i ng rul es of l aw t o the di sposi t i ve fa ct s, si m plybecau se nei t her partyhas seen fitt o invi t e [i t s] att en ti o n to the issue b ytech n icall yco rrect an d ex ac t plead ing s”). S ec o n d , af

ter Hi cks , th e a n s w e r i s c le a r. Hi cks hel d unequi vocal l ythata tr i bal cour tcannotent er t ai n cl ai m s under42 U . S. C . § 1983. A l t hough appl i cat i on of Hi cks to cl ai m s br oughtunder§ 1981 and § 1985 i s t echni cal l ya ques t i on of fi r s ti m pr es s i on for o u r C irc u it, th e re is n o re a so n to d istin g u ish o n e se c tio n o f th e R e c o n stru c tio n -e ra c iv il r i ght s l aw s fr om t he other s . T he Hi cks C our tr eas oned thattr i bal cour t s ar e notcour t s of g e n e ra l ju risd ictio n w ith re sp e c t to n o n m e m b e rs, 5 3 3 U .S . at 3 6 7 , an d “ n o p ro v isio n in fede r al l aw pr ovi des fort r i bal - courtj ur i s di ct i on over§1983 act i ons . ” Id . at368. T he s a m e is tru e o f

§ 1 9 8 1 a n d § 1 9 8 5 . T hi r d, and mosti m por t ant , r el i ance on j ur i s di ct i onal gr ounds

— unl i ke due p ro c e s s — d o e s n o t im p u g n th e tr ib a l c o u rt s . C f . Hi l t on v. G uyot , 159 U . S. 113, 186 ( 1 8 9 5 ) ( n o t i n g t h a ti f

a d e f e n d a n tc a n “ p r o v e th a t[ a p r i o r ] j u d g m e n tw a s r e n d e r e d b y a for ei gn court , w hi ch had no j ur i s di ct i on, ” then “he has no occa s i on t o i m peac h t he j us t i ce o f th e ju d g m e n t”) . T o su g g e st th a t an o th e r c o u rt f a ils to p ro v id e a f

u ll an d f a ir o p p o r tu n i tyt o l i t i g a t e , n o to n l yi n o n e c a s e b u ta s a ma t t e ro f b a s i c s t ru c tu r e , i s a s t e p we s houl d nott ake l i ght l y . B yappl y i ng Hi cks , w e w ou l d st rai gh t forw ardl ydecide t he case w i thouti m pugni ng t he bas i c pr ocedur al fai r nes s of the court s of the Sant a A na Puebl o. A c c o rd in g ly , I co n c u r in th e ju d g m e n t o f th e C o u rt.