Cohn v. Washington

Opinion

1 HONORABLE RICHARD A. JONES

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 10 REUEL COHN, 11

Plaintiff, 12 Case No. C22-1411-RAJ v. 13 ORDER

STATE OF WASHINGTON, 14 Defendant. 15 16 17 This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time 18 and motion for hearing. For the reasons that follow, the Court DISMISSES pro se 19 Plaintiff’s complaint with leave to amend. Dkt. # 5. 20 Plaintiff filed this action against the State of Washington seeking a declaration that 21 certain land in Island County, Washington is an established and active reservation that 22 was set aside for the Snoqualmoo/Snoqualmie tribes. This Court noted that treaties are 23 contracts between sovereigns and “do not give rise to individual actions.” See Skokomish 24 Indian Tribe v. United States, 410 F.3d 506, 515–16 (9th Cir. 2005). Accordingly, 25 Plaintiff lacks standing to seek enforcement of the Treaty as an individual. Golden Hill 26 Paugussett Tribe v. Weicker, 39 F.3d 51, 55 n.1 (2d Cir. 1994) (“Individual Indians do 27 not fall within the zone of interests to be protected by the Nonintercourse Act.”). While 1 the Tribe itself could seek to vindicate any rights allegedly guaranteed it under the Treaty 2 in question, Plaintiff cannot vindicate those rights himself. See Cohn v. Washington, 11- 3 cv-1649 (W.D. Wash. 2011), Dkt. # 14; Johns v. Cnty. of San Diego, 114 F.3d 874, 879 4 (9th Cir. 1997) (“[A] non-lawyer ‘has no authority to appear as an attorney for others 5 than himself.’” (quoting C.E. Pope Equity Trust v. United States, 818 F.2d 696, 697 (9th 6 Cir. 1987))); see Local General Rule 2(g)(4)(B). Because Plaintiff cannot prosecute this 7 claim, the Court dismisses the complaint. 8 Plaintiff claims that his role as chief allows him to act as a pro se representative in 9 this matter. Dkt. # 15. While Plaintiff may disagree with the Court’s order, the Court will 10 not permit him to represent the Tribe as an individual. Plaintiff also requests an extension 11 to find counsel because of health concerns. Dkt. # 14. The Court will extend the deadline 12 to find counsel until October 30, 2023. 13 For the reasons stated above, the Court GRANTS IN PART the motion for 14 extension of time to find counsel. Dkt. # 14. If no notice of appearance is filed by an 15 attorney by October 30, 2023, the Court will dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint without 16 prejudice for failure to prosecute. Johns, 114 F.3d at 879 (affirming the trial court’s 17 dismissal for failure to prosecute, but concluding that it should have dismissed without 18 prejudice). The Court DENIES the request for hearing. Dkt. # 15.

19 DATED this 14th day of September, 2023. 20 A 21 22 The Honorable Richard A. Jones 23 United States District Judge 24

25 26