Maynard v. Narragansett Tribe
This text of Maynard v. Narragansett Tribe (Maynard v. Narragansett Tribe) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the First Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Bluebook
Maynard v. Narragansett Tribe, (1st Cir. 1993).
Opinion
USCA1 Opinion
January 27, 1993
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
____________________
____________________
No. 92-2106
No. 92-2106
KENNETH L. MAYNARD,
KENNETH L. MAYNARD,
Plaintiff, Appellant,
Plaintiff, Appellant,
v.
v.
NARRAGANSETT INDIAN TRIBE,
NARRAGANSETT INDIAN TRIBE,
Defendant, Appellee.
Defendant, Appellee.
____________________
____________________
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND
FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND
[Hon. Raymond J. Pettine, Senior U.S. District Judge]
[Hon. Raymond J. Pettine, Senior U.S. District Judge]
__________________________
____________________
____________________
Before
Before
Cyr, Circuit Judge,
Cyr, Circuit Judge,
_____________
Campbell, Senior Circuit Judge,
Campbell, Senior Circuit Judge,
____________________
and Boudin, Circuit Judge.
and Boudin, Circuit Judge.
_____________
____________________
____________________
W. Mark Russo with whom Adler, Pollock & Sheehan, Inc. was on
W. Mark Russo with whom Adler, Pollock & Sheehan, Inc. was on
______________ _______________________________
brief for appellant.
brief for appellant.
John F. Killoy, Jr. with whom Law Office of H. Jefferson Melish
John F. Killoy, Jr. with whom Law Office of H. Jefferson Melish
___________________ __________________________________
was on brief for appellee.
was on brief for appellee.
____________________
____________________
____________________
____________________
CYR, Circuit Judge. Kenneth L. Maynard appeals from a
CYR, Circuit Judge
______________
judgment dismissing his claim for injunctive relief against the
Narragansett Indian Tribe. The district court determined that the
Tribe possessed sovereign immunity from suit. We affirm for substan-
tially the same reasons stated in Section III.A of the unreported
district court memorandum and order of dismissal.
"Indian tribes have long been recognized as possessing the
common-law immunity from suit traditionally enjoyed by sovereign
powers." Santa Clara Pueblo v. Martinez, 436 U.S. 49, 58 (1978); see
__________________ ________ ___
Oklahoma Tax Comm'n v. Citizen Band Potawatomi Indian Tribe of Oklaho-
___________________ _______________________________________________
ma, 498 U.S. 505, , 111 S. Ct. 905, 909 (1991); Bottomly v. Passam-
__ ___ ________ _______
aquoddy Tribe, 599 F.2d 1061, 1066 (1st Cir. 1979). Although sover-
_____________
eign immunity may be waived by the tribe, or abrogated by Congress,
see Oklahoma Tax, 498 U.S. at , 111 S. Ct. at 910, its relinquish-
___ ____________ ____
ment "cannot be implied but must be unequivocally expressed." United
______ __ _______ ______
States v. Testan, 424 U.S. 392, 399 (1976) (emphasis added); see also
______ ______ ___ ____
Fluent v. Salamanca Indian Lease Auth., 928 F.2d 542, 546 (2d Cir.),
______ ____________________________
cert. denied, 112 S. Ct. 74 (1991) ("When Congress has chosen to limit
_____ ______
or waive the sovereign immunity of Indian tribes, it has done so in
__
clear language.") (citing Act of July 22, 1958, Pub. L. No. 85-547,
_____ ________
1, providing that tribes may "commence" and "defend" actions against
each other) (emphasis added).
Maynard contends that the Narragansett Indian Tribe's
sovereign immunity should not appertain in these circumstances because
its actions encroach on lands to which the Tribe affirmatively relin-
quished all legal claim and title.
The present action arose out of a boundary dispute with the
Tribe, relating to Maynard's allegations that tribal officials repeat-
edly trespassed on his property.* The Tribe acquired the land abut-
ting Maynard's property in 1978, as part of an overall settlement of
its legal claim that the Tribe possessed superior, aboriginal title to
3200 acres in the State of Rhode Island. In return for eventual
congressional approval of the land claims settlement terms, see Rhode
___
Island Indian Claims Settlement Act, 25 U.S.C. 1701-1716 (1978),
the Tribe agreed that its claims to non-settlement lands in Rhode
Island would be extinguished and that the settlement lands by and
large would be "subject to the civil and criminal laws and jurisdic-
tion of the State of Rhode Island." Id. 1705(a), 1708.
___
Maynard invites us to infer a waiver or abrogation of the
_____
Tribe's sovereign immunity, citing to the settlement agreement, the
enacting legislation, and excerpts from the legislative history. As
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
United States v. Testan
424 U.S. 392 (Supreme Court, 1976)
Santa Clara Pueblo v. Martinez
436 U.S. 49 (Supreme Court, 1978)
Oklahoma Tax Comm'n v. Citizen Band of Potawatomi Tribe of Okla.
498 U.S. 505 (Supreme Court, 1991)
Mashpee Tribe v. New Seabury Corp., Mashpee Tribe v. New Seabury Corp., Mashpee Tribe v. New Seabury Corp., Matthew B. Connolly, Etc.
592 F.2d 575 (First Circuit, 1979)
John S. Bottomly v. Passamaquoddy Tribe
599 F.2d 1061 (First Circuit, 1979)
Narragansett Indian Tribe v. Paul E. Guilbert
934 F.2d 4 (First Circuit, 1991)
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Bluebook (online)
Maynard v. Narragansett Tribe, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/maynard-v-narragansett-tribe-ca1-1993.