Opinion ID: 4444436
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: introduction

Text: Caddo Nation of Oklahoma (“Caddo Nation”) brought suit against Wichita and Affiliated Tribes (“Wichita Tribe”), asserting Wichita Tribe violated the National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”) and the National Historic Preservation Act (“NHPA”) during the process of planning to build a Tribal History Center funded by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (“HUD”). See Caddo Nation of Okla. v. Wichita & Affiliated Tribes, 877 F.3d 1171, 1173-74 (10th Cir. 2017). 1 Caddo Nation appealed to this court after the district court denied a temporary restraining order preventing continuing construction of the History Center. Id. at 1175. This court held it lacked jurisdiction because construction of the History Center was completed during the pendency of the appeal. Id. at 1177-78. “[T]he relief Caddo Nation requested from the district court—a temporary restraining order enjoining construction— [was] now moot.” Id. at 1172. We recognized, however, the possibility Caddo Nation might have viable NEPA and NHPA claims “regarding the operation of the Center or other activities on the site.” Id. at 1178. Thus, we remanded for further 1 The factual, legal, and procedural background of the dispute between Caddo Nation and Wichita Tribe over the History Center project is set out at length in this court’s prior opinion. Caddo Nation of Okla. v. Wichita & Affiliated Tribes, 877 F.3d 1171, 1173-76 (10th Cir. 2017). Thus, for the most part, it is not necessary to restate the background in resolving the instant appeal. proceedings and specifically noted “Caddo Nation may seek to amend its complaint or file a new motion for a preliminary injunction on the History Center’s use pending the outcome of its [NEPA] and [NHPA] claims.” Id. Caddo Nation filed an amended complaint. Wichita Tribe responded by filing a motion to dismiss. Wichita Tribe argued all claims set out in the amended complaint were barred by tribal sovereign immunity and, in any event, Caddo Nation’s NEPA and NHPA claims were mooted by the completion of the History Center. The district court concluded all claims set out in the amended complaint, with the exception of the NEPA and NHPA claims, were barred by tribal sovereign immunity. 2 As to the NEPA and NHPA claims, the district court concluded Wichita Tribe agreed to comply with those statutory provisions, and thereby waived its sovereign immunity, when it accepted money from HUD for the History Center project. See 42 U.S.C. § 5304(g); 24 C.F.R. §§ 58.2, 58.4, 58.5; see also Caddo Nation, 877 F.3d at 1174 (noting that by accepting HUD funds, Wichita Tribes agreed to comply with NEPA and NHPA). Nevertheless, 2 Caddo Nation has not challenged the district court’s ruling in this regard. Accordingly, the only claims from the amended complaint at issue on appeal are Caddo Nation’s NEPA and NHPA claims. This court has made clear that the dispute between Caddo Nation, Wichita Tribe, and Delaware Nation over ownership and/or control of the parcel upon which the History Center was built is not relevant to Caddo Nation’s NEPA and NHPA claims. Caddo Nation, 877 F.3d at 1173 n.2. Accordingly, Caddo Nation’s Motion to Take Judicial Notice and File Supplemental Appendix, which relates solely to that question, is DENIED. -3- the district court ruled that Caddo Nation’s NEPA and NHPA claims were mooted by the completion of the History Center. On appeal, Caddo Nation asserts the district court erred in concluding its NEPA and NHPA claims are moot. Wichita Tribe contests that assertion and, as an alternate basis for affirming the district court’s order of dismissal, contends the claims are barred by tribal sovereign immunity. The district court correctly ruled that Caddo Nation’s NEPA and NHPA claims are not barred by sovereign immunity. 3 The district court was also correct in concluding that most aspects of 3 Wichita Tribe raises various other matters in its response brief in an effort to offer alternative rationales for affirming the district court’s dismissal of the amended complaint. None of these matters is worthy of an extended analysis. The assertion Caddo Nation’s NEPA and NHPA claims are not properly brought under the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”) clearly lacks merit. “[A] plaintiff seeking judicial review pursuant to the APA must (i) identify some final agency action and (ii) demonstrate that its claims fall within the zone of interests protected by the statute forming the basis of its claims.” Catron Cty. Bd. of Comm’rs v. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Serv., 75 F.3d 1429, 1434 (10th Cir. 1996) (quotation omitted). Wichita Tribe has never contested that the Finding of No Significant Impact (“FONSI”) in its Environmental Assessment (“EA”) satisfies the requirement of final agency action. Furthermore, given that the instant dispute centers around the possibility the construction site is a burial ground for members of the Caddo Nation, Caddo Nation, 877 F.3d at 1175, the claims “fall within the zone of interests protected by” NHPA and NEPA. In any event, this court has already recognized that, at the very least, Caddo Nation’s NEPA claim was brought under the APA. Id. at 1175 n.4. To the extent Wichita Tribe is asserting Caddo Nation did not exhaust its administrative remedies, such an argument is not adequately briefed. Wichita Tribe vaguely asserts Caddo Nation “could have filed timely administrative appeals of the Wichita Tribe’s and HUD’s decisions regarding the Project.” Appellees’ Br. at 39. As the Supreme Court has made clear, however, administrative exhaustion is entirely dependent on statutory and regulatory requirements. Darby v. Cisneros, 509 U.S. 137, 153-54 (1993). (continued...) -4- Caddo Nation’s NEPA and NHPA claims are moot. Those claims are moot as they relate to the 4000 square foot museum, the traditional grass house, and the grass arbor. There is no indication in the record, however, that the ceremonial dance grounds, a portion of the History Center project specifically included in Wichita Tribe’s EA, has been completed. Thus, on the current record, Caddo Nation’s NEPA and NHPA claims are not moot as to that narrow aspect of the History Center project. Accordingly, exercising jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, this court affirms in part, reverses in part, and remands to the district court for further proceeding consistent with this opinion.