Opinion ID: 1186922
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: Special Attorney

Text: There is no merit to Suazo's claim of jurisdictional error because a federally-appointed Special Attorney was not participating at all times during the Manby case. The United States Supreme Court in Candelaria, supra, held that where, as here, a federally-appointed Special Attorney for the Pueblo appeared and prosecuted the case, the United States has for all practical purposes appeared in the suit and is as effectively bound by the decision as if it had been an actual party. Candelaria does not require that the Special Attorney prosecute every aspect of the case to its final conclusion. The Special Attorney represents the United States' as well as the Indians' interests and, as with other counsel, any appearance in and prosecution of the case by him is enough to give the court jurisdiction over, and to bind, those he represents. F. Cohen, Handbook of Federal Indian Law, ch. 19, § 2A(1)(f) (U.N.M. Facimile ed. of 1942 ed.). Since we dispose of the case on the issues discussed herein, we do not reach other issues raised in the appeal. The decision of the trial court is affirmed. IT IS SO ORDERED. SOSA, J., and BRUCE E. KAUFMAN, District Judge, concur.