Opinion ID: 171193
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Sakezzie v. Utah State Indian Affairs Commission

Text: The Sakezzie action was filed in April 1961, on behalf of the named plaintiffs and as representatives of and members of the class of persons who are Navajo Indians residing within the Aneth Extension of the Navajo Indian Reservation in San Juan County, Utah. Although it was a class action, the Sakezzie case was not certified as such, nor was it subject to the current rules governing class actions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, as amended in 1966. Plaintiffs requested an accounting of all Fund monies and alleged that no expenditures had been for their use and benefit. Plaintiffs did not seek monetary compensation in connection with the accounting. Utah provided answers to interrogatories containing a summary explanation of expenditures, with no supporting documentation. The case was tried to the court on June 12, 1961, at which time the district court issued an oral ruling where the judge stated: [t]he matter of accounting has been rendered moot by pretrial discovery, I believe, and also by the evidence which indicates that the agencies of the Federal Government have been receiving and paying over to the State the funds in question, leaving the problem of accountability in the area of disbursements, rather than checking receipts. The pretrial discovery refers to the interrogatory answers, but it is not clear what other evidence the district court was referring to. Nothing in the record indicates that Plaintiffs objected to the district court's finding that the accounting claim was mooted by the interrogatory answers. The district court entered written Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, which stated that the court found that the Utah defendants have not kept the plaintiffs and those represented by them reasonably informed concerning the amounts received in said [F]und and as to expenditures from said [F]und; but in the course of this proceeding have fully informed the plaintiffs of such receipts and expenditures. Sakezzie v. Utah Indian Affairs Comm'n, 198 F.Supp. 218, 222 (D.Utah 1961). ( Sakezzie I ). The court also concluded that the Fund is not a public fund. Id. at 224. Plaintiffs did not appeal from this order. In July 1962, plaintiffs filed the first of two post-judgment petitions for relief, alleging that defendants were not complying with the district court's judgment and decree. Plaintiffs alleged that defendants refused to provide them with information relating to either the receipts or disbursements of the Fund. Plaintiffs sought an order requiring monthly accountings of both receipts and expenditures. Defendants again filed answers to interrogatories setting forth what they characterized as accounting information in the form of an Indian Affairs Commission Annual Report that contained accounting information from July 1, 1961 through June 30, 1962. On February 7, 1963, the district court entered a Memorandum of Decision, stating that while defendants had kept full and proper accounts of the funds received by them, they demonstrated remarkable unconcern about keeping the beneficiaries of the fund informed of accretions to said fund, about disbursements and commitments therefrom and about plans with respect to future expenditures, have failed to do what was convenient and reasonably within their power to advise the beneficiaries concerning these and other matters and have often ignored without justification or excuse requests and inquiries by the Indians or their representative. Sakezzie v. Utah Indian Affairs Comm'n, 215 F.Supp. 12, 18 (D.Utah 1963) ( Sakezzie II ). The court went on to state that it was clear that defendants had not discharged their duty in that respect and, after some admonishment, ordered defendants to make monthly accounting reports of receipts and expenditures as requested by plaintiffs. Id. at 18-19, 24. In May 1964, plaintiffs filed a second post-judgment petition seeking relief from defendants' alleged failure to comply with the two previous orders. This third petition alleged, inter alia, continued refusal of Fund administrators to provide information regarding ongoing receipts and expenditures. The third petition did not seek an order requiring Defendants to produce yet another accounting, but instead requested compensation for funds that the court found to have been expended or invested for purposes inconsistent with its previous orders, and an order enjoining defendants from making any further use or expenditures of the funds. The record in Sakezzie reveals no further activity for more than a year, when the district court ordered Plaintiffs to show cause why the third petition should not be dismissed. Plaintiffs' attorney did not attend the hearing and the district court dismissed the petition for failure to prosecute. Two days later, plaintiffs' counsel filed a Motion for Reinstatement. The court denied the motion, but granted Plaintiffs leave to file an amended petition. Plaintiffs did not file another petition, and the Sakezzie case appears to have ended with the dismissal for failure to prosecute.