Source: http://openjurist.org/991/f2d/1249
Timestamp: 2013-12-07 19:47:02
Document Index: 335864612

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1982', '§ 1988', '§ 1982', '§ 844', '§ 1982', '§ 1982', '§ 1988', '§ 1982', '§ 1982', '§ 1982', '§ 455', '§ 455']

991 F2d 1249 Lac Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians v. Stop Treaty Abuse-Wisconsin Inc | OpenJurist
991 F. 2d 1249 - Lac Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians v. Stop Treaty Abuse-Wisconsin Inc	Home991 f2d 1249 lac flambeau band of lake superior chippewa indians v. stop treaty abuse-wisconsin inc
991 F2d 1249 Lac Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians v. Stop Treaty Abuse-Wisconsin Inc 991 F.2d 1249
LAC du FLAMBEAU BAND OF LAKE SUPERIOR CHIPPEWA INDIANS,Michael Allen, Wa-Swa-Gon Treaty Association,Thomas Maulson, Robert Martin, NickHockings, and Gilbert Chapman,Plaintiffs-Appellees,v.STOP TREATY ABUSE-WISCONSIN, INC., and Dean Crist,Defendants-Appellants.
Nos. 92-1315, 92-26721.
Argued Sept. 11, 1992.Decided April 14, 1993.As Corrected April 26, 1993.
Brian L. Pierson (argued), Hall, First & Patterson, Milwaukee, WI, Kathryn L. Tierney, Lac du Flambeau, WI, for plaintiffs-appellees.
William A. Schroeder (argued), Richard E. Sommer, Sommer, Olk, Schroeder & Payant, Rhinelander, WI, for defendants-appellants.
Before BAUER, Chief Judge, MANION, Circuit Judge, and MOODY, District Judge.2
In this consolidated appeal, Dean Crist and Stop Treaty Abuse-Wisconsin, Inc. ("STA") appeal from the district court's judgment granting permanent injunctive relief to plaintiffs-appellees on a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1982, and entry of judgment for fees and costs to plaintiffs-appellees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988. They also seek reversal of several interlocutory decisions made by the district court. We affirm the interlocutory decisions, but find the district court erred in granting summary judgment when it resolved a disputed issue of material fact against STA and Crist--whether STA and Crist's harassment of plaintiffs-appellees was racially-motivated. Thus, we reverse the district court's order granting summary judgment, vacate both final judgments, and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. On remand, the preliminary injunction that was granted by the district court is reinstated.
The Lac du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians ("LDF") is one of the several Chippewa bands which possess treaty-retained usufructuary rights to engage in off-reservation hunting, fishing, trapping and gathering on public lands in the northern third of Wisconsin. The existence and exercise of these usufructuary rights has been controversial. Another panel of this court affirmed the present vitality of the treaties and concomitant ability of the Chippewa to exercise the rights in Lac Courte Oreilles v. Voigt, 700 F.2d 341, appeal dismissed and cert. denied sub nom. Besadny v. Lac Courte Oreilles, 464 U.S. 805, 104 S.Ct. 53, 78 L.Ed.2d 72 (1983). In the present case plaintiffs-appellees seek to enjoin interference with their exercise of fishing rights. Plaintiffs-appellees are the LDF, suing on behalf of all of its members, the LDF's president, a treaty support group and four individual LDF members who engage in off-reservation fishing.3
Dean Crist is a Wisconsin resident who believes, to put it mildly, that we decided Voigt wrongly. He is concerned mainly with the right of the Chippewa to take fish by spear and by net: highly efficient fishing methods prohibited by law for all other anglers. According to Crist, at the time the treaties were entered into, the Chippewa used primitive equipment to spear fish: hand-paddled birchbark canoes, fragile, hand-carved wooden spears and flaming torches. This made the harvest of fish difficult, and the number taken few. Now, aluminum fishing boats powered by outboard motors are used. Sealed beam automobile headlamps carried in the boats provide illumination, and metal-tined spears minimize lost time due to breakage.
These modern conveniences, unknown when the treaties were formed, make the treaties invalid, Crist believes, or are at least a reason why the treaties should be abrogated. Crist's beliefs are explained at length in a pamphlet he authored for STA entitled "Wisconsin's Treaty Problems--What Are The Issues?" The pamphlet also serves to explain in part STA's corporate purpose.
STA is a for-profit Wisconsin corporation formed by Crist and others who share his disgust with the Voigt decision and object to treaty rights, especially spearing. Crist occupies the position of "spokesman" in the STA organizational structure.4 STA encourages "boat landing protests" at off-reservation sites where LDF members spear. According to the STA pamphlet written by Crist, the protests are for the purpose of "send[ing] the message to Madison and Washington, D.C. that we need the treaty problems in Northern Wisconsin resolved." Crist engages in activities, which STA encourages, to "save fish" by interfering with the LDF's spearing. The line separating protesting from saving fish is imperceptible.
The protesting/fish saving which caused the LDF to seek an injunction has not been peaceful. Protestors, some of whom are associated with STA but many of whom are perhaps not,5 have harassed the LDF to make spearing unpleasant, dangerous and/or impossible. The district court's order granting summary judgment provides a comprehensive description of the harassment. Lac du Flambeau v. Stop Treaty Abuse-Wisconsin, Inc., 781 F.Supp. 1385 (W.D.Wis.1992). In brief, the protestors blew steel whistles (obtainable in a "protest kit" sold by STA) directly into the ears of LDF spearers and their accompanying family members and friends. The protestors crowded landings to make launching boats difficult, and, for the same purpose, formed flotillas of boats around the landings. They operated their boats in a manner intended to create wakes so that LDF members could not stand in their boats to spear. STA sponsored a contest to encourage production of concrete fish decoys which could be used to cause damage to the metal spears. On occasion, rocks were thrown at the spearers.
Not satisfied merely with physically interfering with the spearing, the protestors also injected racism into the harassment. They hurled vile racial insults, such as "timbernigger" and "welfare Indian" at the spearers, chanted "hi-how-are-ya" to the beat of tom-toms and engaged in other mockery of Indian culture and tradition. The STA pamphlet authored by Crist contains bigoted racial stereotypes; for example, that each year "thousands" of fish caught by the spearers spoil because of "the lack of ambition to clean them." At a STA-sponsored rally, the speaker's podium featured an unflattering caricature of an Indian.
On February 1, 1991 the LDF filed suit seeking a permanent injunction to stop STA's interference with LDF fishing, asserting claims under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1982, 1983, 1985(3), 1986 and pendent state claims under Wis.Stat. §§ 844.01, 29.223 and 813.125. No damages were sought, only injunctive relief. The LDF also moved for a preliminary injunction when the complaint was filed.
On March 4 STA moved that the district judge disqualify herself due to prior involvement in the Voigt litigation and requested a jury trial. The judge heard the motion for disqualification on March 5, orally denied it at the hearing, and entered a written order of denial on March 6. On March 7 the judge conducted a hearing on the LDF's motion for a preliminary injunction. On March 15 the preliminary injunction was granted. Lac du Flambeau v. Stop Treaty Abuse-Wisconsin, Inc., 759 F.Supp. 1339 (W.D.Wis.1991).6 STA did not appeal from the preliminary injunction.
On October 2 STA moved to amend its answer to assert a new defense. On October 15 the LDF moved for summary judgment on each of its claims. On October 31 the judge conducted a motion hearing and denied STA's motion to amend and earlier request for a jury trial. STA's request for additional time to file a responsive brief to the LDF's motion for summary judgment was granted.
Despite the additional time, after briefing on the motion was complete, STA on December 2 sought leave to file a supplemental response to the motion for summary judgment. The LDF moved to strike the supplemental response. On December 24 STA again sought leave to amend its answer, this time to include the additional defense raised in the supplemental response as well as the defense raised in the previously-denied motion to amend.
In an order dated January 6, 1992 the district judge granted the motion to strike the supplemental brief, denied the motion for leave to amend, granted summary judgment on the LDF's § 1982 claim, and ordered entry of final judgment granting permanent injunctive relief. 781 F.Supp. at 1395. Because the district court was able to grant complete relief by deciding only the § 1982 cause, the other LDF claims were dismissed. On January 27, 1992 a final judgment permanently enjoining STA from interfering with the LDF's exercise of fishing rights was entered, with terms identical to the preliminary injunction. 781 F.Supp. at 1395-96. A separate judgment for fees and costs was entered on July 17, 1992 in favor of the LDF as a prevailing party pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988.III. ANALYSIS
STA argues that several interlocutory decisions made by the district court were erroneous and require reversal, as does the district court's order granting summary judgment, making it necessary to vacate the final judgments entered against STA. The issues raised are: 1) whether the district court abused its discretion in denying STA's request for a jury trial, 2) whether the district court abused its discretion in denying STA's motion for disqualification, 3) whether the district court abused its discretion in refusing to allow STA leave to file an amended answer and supplemental response to the LDF's summary judgment motion, 4) whether usufructuary fishing rights are "property" within the meaning of that term under § 1982, 5) whether affidavits filed in support of the LDF motion were so deficient as to preclude a grant of summary judgment, 6) whether the district court's holding impermissibly restricts speech, in violation of first amendment (as explained below, a somewhat incomprehensible argument), 7) whether disputed issues of material fact precluded summary judgment, and 8) whether the LDF is a "prevailing party" entitled to attorneys' fees or whether the cost and fees awarded are excessive.
We find that the grant of summary judgment must be reversed, which requires vacating the judgment for fees making the issues raised in that appeal moot. The interlocutory issues raised in the appeal from the decision on the merits are not moot, however, and we address them to avoid needless proceedings on remand. Weir v. Propst, 915 F.2d 283, 286 (7th Cir.1990). We turn first to the issues collateral to the merits of the § 1982 cause of action.
A. STA's Right to a Jury Trial
STA's argument that the district court abused its discretion by denying STA's request for a jury trial is so cursory it borders on being frivolous. In this action the LDF sought only an injunction, no monetary damages. It is beyond question that a right to a jury trial does not attach to actions seeking only equitable relief. United States v. Louisiana, 339 U.S. 699, 70 S.Ct. 914, 94 L.Ed. 1216 (1950). We have had little success in locating any decision where this principle has been questioned; STA's research efforts apparently fared no better.
Citing no authority,7 a violation of Fed.R.App.P. 28 and reason alone to reject the argument, STA argues that the award of attorneys' fees available to plaintiffs who succeed under § 1982 is a "de facto award of damages." The size of the potential award in the present case, STA argues, should have been "recognized as justification" by the district court "to exercise discretion" to allow a jury trial. STA's failure to make this argument in the district court is waiver, as is its failure to develop the argument before us. Wigod v. Chicago Mercantile Exchange, 981 F.2d 1510, 1519 (7th Cir.1992); Churchill v. Waters, 977 F.2d 1114, 1120 n. 6 (7th Cir.1992); United States v. Berkowitz, 927 F.2d 1376, 1384 (7th Cir.1991).
The absence of support for STA's argument is telling, and we choose not to do STA's research work. Given the LDF's non-acquiescence to the jury demand and the language of Fed.R.Civ.P. 39, it is doubtful the district court even had discretion to allow a jury trial. Besides, we flatly disagree with the logic of STA's position. "Abuse of discretion" is a highly deferential standard of review, applied by an appellate court to a district court's decision only if it is "fundamentally wrong." Anderson v. United Parcel Service, 915 F.2d 313, 315 (7th Cir.1990). Not exercising discretion is not the same as exercising discretion abusively. It would be an extremely unlikely event, we think, to reverse a judge for failing to "recognize a justification" to exercise discretion in the first place. Hypothesizing aside, this is not that event.B. STA's Motion for Disqualification
The district court also did not abuse its discretion in denying STA's motion for disqualification. STA moved for disqualification pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 455(a) and (b)(1). Subsection (a) requires disqualification where "impartiality might reasonably be questioned;" subsection (b)(1) where the presiding judge has "personal bias or prejudice concerning a party, or personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding."
STA's appellate brief does not indicate whether it disagrees with the district court's ruling under one or both of the subsections, but appeal of the decision under subsection (a) does not fare well. The rule in this circuit is well-established that a party moving for disqualification under § 455(a) must immediately move for a writ of mandamus in the event the district judge denies the motion. United States v. Towns, 913 F.2d 434, 443 (7th Cir.1990) (collecting cases). That having not been done here, the argument is waived, and we give it no further consideration. Id.
Appeal of a denial of a motion under subsection (b)(1) is not preconditioned on a writ of mandamus, however, so we proceed. Appellate review of the district judge's decision regarding disqualification under (b)(1) is de novo; the question is whether a reasonable person would be convinced the judge was biased. Taylor v. O'Grady, 888 F.2d 1189, 1201 (7th Cir.1989); United States v. Balistrieri, 779 F.2d 1191, 1202 (7th Cir.1985), cert. denied sub nom. DiSalvo v. United States, 475 U.S. 1095, 106 S.Ct. 1490, 89 L.Ed.2d 892 (1986). In this case, to ask this question is to answer it.
STA's argument that the district judge had "personal bias or prejudice concerning a party or personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts" is simple: due to previous involvement in the Voigt case and many other cases involving treaty rights, the judge must be biased against anyone protesting against the existence of those rights. STA also argues that in the Voigt litigation the district judge found as fact that Chippewa spearers had been subjected to violent and lawless acts by "protestors." STA believes this is personal knowledge of a fact disputed in this litigation, or at least a suggestion of potential bias or prejudgment by the district judge that they, as admitted protestors against spearing, had themselves engaged in the acts in question.
During a telephonic hearing on the motion for disqualification, the district judge stated:
The findings I made in June of 1989 [in the Voigt case] were directed to the facts that were in front of me at that time. I found that there were some actions by some protestors that were as I described. I didn't make findings that those protestors were specific individuals, that they were members of specific groups. Even if I had, I don't think that would make any difference at this time. But I didn't.... what I found in June 1989 is probably completely irrelevant ... I'm certainly not going to go back to any of my notes from 1989. This is a different case. These are different lawyers. They are going to be putting in proof on Thursday [at the hearing on the motion for a preliminary injunction] which is going to be the basis for the rulings. And I will focus my rulings solely on the proof that is before me on Thursday and not on anything else that may have gone on in another lawsuit that is tangentially related to this one.
Tr. of hearing, Mar. 5, 1991, pp. 9-10. The following day the district court entered a written order denying the motion to disqualify finding that "moving defendants adduced no evidence of bias that would lead a reasonable person to question my impartiality in this hearing." Coupled with the judge's earlier comments at the close of the hearing, it is clear that the judge felt she had no personal knowledge of facts in issue, or actual or apparent bias.
"Personal" knowledge of evidentiary facts means "extrajudicial." Balistrieri, 779 F.2d at 1202. Facts learned by a judge in his or her judicial capacity regarding the parties before the court, whether learned in the same or a related proceeding, cannot be the basis for disqualification. United States v. Patrick, 542 F.2d 381, 390 (7th Cir.1976), cert. denied, 430 U.S. 931, 97 S.Ct. 1551, 51 L.Ed.2d 775 (1977). That being the case, it is difficult to imagine how judicially-learned facts about different parties in a case similar to the one being tried would require disqualification. The district judge made it clear that she did not link the activities of STA and its members to protestor