United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 96-4268

___________

Mille Lacs Band of Chippewa Indians; *

Arthur Gahbow; Walter Sutton; Carleen *

Benjamin; Joseph Dunkley; *

*

Plaintiffs, *

*

United States of America; *

*

Intervenor-Plaintiff, *

*

St. Croix Chippewa Indians of *

Wisconsin; Lac Du Flambeau Band of *

Lake Superior Chippewas; Bad River *

Band of Lake Superior Chippewa *

Indians; Lac Courte Oreilles Band of * Appeal from the United States

Lake Superior Chippewa Indians of * District Court for the

Wisconsin; Sokaogan Chippewa * District of Minnesota.

Community; Red Cliff Band of Lake *

Superior Chippewa; * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Intervenors-Plaintiffs, *

*

v. *

*

State of Minnesota; Minnesota *

Department of Natural Resources; *

*

Defendants, *

*

County of Aitkin; County of Benton; *

County of Sherburne; Cty. of Crow *
-2-

Wing; County of Isanti; County of *

Kanabec; County of Mille Lacs; County *

of Morrison; County of Pine; *

*

Intervenors-Defendants, *

------------------------------------------------ *

Fond Du Lac Band of Chippewa *

Indians; Robert Peacock; Peter Defoe; *

Clifton Rabideaux; Herman Wise; *

George Dupuis; *

*

Plaintiffs-Appellees, *

*

v. *

*

Arne Carlson, Governor of Minnesota; *

Rodney Sando, Commissioner of the *

Minnesota Department of Natural *

Resources; Raymond B. Hitchcock, *

Assistant Commissioner of Operations *

Minnesota Department of Natural *

Resources; *

*

Defendants, *

*

County of Aitkin; County of Benton; *

County of Sherburne; Cty. of Crow *

Wing; County of Isanti; County of *

Kanabec; County of Mille Lacs; County *

of Morrison; County of Pine; *

*

Movants-Appellants. *
-3-

___________

No. 96-4277

___________

Mille Lacs Band of Chippewa Indians; *

Arthur Gahbow; Walter Sutton; Carleen *

Benjamin; Joseph Dunkley; *

*

Plaintiffs, *

*

United States of America; St. Croix *

Chippewa Indians of Wisconsin; Lac Du * 

Flambeau Band of Lake Superior *

Chippewas; Bad River Band of Lake *

Superior Chippewa Indians; Lac Courte *

Oreilles Band of Lake Superior *

Chippewa Indians of Wisconsin; *

Sokaogan Chippewa Community; Red *

Cliff Band of Lake Superior Chippewa; *

*

Intervenors-Plaintiffs, *

*

v. *

*

State of Minnesota; Minnesota *

Department of Natural Resources; *

*

Defendants, *

*

County of Aitkin; County of Benton; *

County of Sherburne; Cty. of Crow *

Wing; County of Isanti; County of *

Kanabec; County of Mille Lacs; County *

of Morrison; County of Pine; *

*

Intervenors-Defendants, *
-4-

------------------------------------------------ *

Fond Du Lac Band of Chippewa *

Indians; Robert Peacock; Peter Defoe; *

Clifton Rabideaux; Herman Wise; *

George Dupuis; *

*

Plaintiffs-Appellees, *

*

v. *

*

Arne Carlson, Governor of Minnesota; *

Rodney Sando, Commissioner of the *

Minnesota Department of Natural *

Resources; Raymond B. Hitchcock, *

Assistant Commissioner of Operations *

Minnesota Department of Natural *

Resources; *

*

Defendants, *

*

John W. Thompson; Jenny Thompson; *

Glenn Thompson; Joseph Karpen; *

Leroy Burling; Gary Kiedrowski; *

*

Movants-Appellants. *

___________

Submitted: June 12, 1997

Filed: June 27, 1997

___________

Before McMILLIAN, LAY, and JOHN R. GIBSON, Circuit Judges.

___________

The Minnesota counties of Aitkin, Benton, Sherburne, Crow Wing, Isanti,

Kanabec, Mille Lacs, Morrison and Pine, and Minnesota landowners John W.
-5-

Thompson, Jenny Thompson, Joseph N. Karpen, Leroy Burling, Glenn E. Thompson,

and Gary M. Kierdrowski petition the district court to intervene in Fond du Lac Band

of Chippewa Indians, et al. v. Carlson, et al., Civ. No. 5-92-159, which has been

consolidated with Mille Lacs Band of Chippewa Indians, et al. v. Minnesota, et al.,

Civ. No. 3-94-1226. The district court denied leave to intervene on the ground that the

petitions were not timely filed. This appeal followed.

Upon review of the briefs and records we find that the district court did not

abuse its discretion in denying petitioners' motion to intervene. We affirm the order of

the district court. We make note, however, that this order is without prejudice to the

petitioners should they file a timely petition in the district court in any further

proceedings that might encompass the subject matter of the aforementioned litigation.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U. S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.