Covelo Indian Community v. James Watt, Secretary of the Interior

United States District Court

For the District of Columbia

Filed Nov. 17, 1982
James F. Davey, Clerk
Civil Action No. 82-2725

Covelo Indian Community, et al.,

v.

James Watt, Secretary of the
Interior, et al.,
Defendants.

I. Introduction
Plaintiffs in this action seek declaratory and mandatory

injunctive relief to secure rights and duties they claim are

owed them, and all others similarly siturated, by the defendant

federal officials.

As will be more fully set forth herein, the nature

of this case required that the proceedings be significantly

expedited. Consequently, to accommodate time limits, the

parties stipulated to essential facts, and further stipulated

to the authenticity of nearly all the documents appended to

their briefs. Finally, they agreed to consolidate a trial

on the merits with the hearing on the preliminary injunction

and other motions. Due to that cooperative effort, several

issues are now ready for decision.

Presently before us are the motion of plaintiffs

for class certification pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and the

motion of plaintiffs for preliminary mandatory injunctive relief. Defendants have opposed

these motions and have themselves moved to dismiss this action, or in the alternative for

summary judgement in their favor.

For the reasons set forth below, we grant plaintiffs' motion for class certification, deny

defendants' motion to dismiss or for summary judgement, and grant permanent mandatory

injunctive relief in favor of the plaintiff class.

In addressing the merits of this action pursuant to consolidation under Rule 65(a)(2), we

have based our factual findings on the stipulated statement of facts, transcripts of certain

depositions, the authentic exhibits submitted by the parties, and the November 4, 1982

hearing.

II. Background

Prior to 1966 there was no general statute of limitations applicable to the United States, as

plaintiff, seeking money damages on contract and tort claims, although time limitations were

imposed upon private individuals. In 1966, Congress sought to correct that apparent inequity

and enacted 28 U.S.C 2415 which imposes a six-year time period in which the federal

government must bring actions based on contracts with the United States, and a three-year

limitations period for most tort claims. Subsection g of 2415 specifically provides that any

claims which arose prior to 1966 were deemed to have accrued on the date of enactment

of the new statute of limitations, i.e. July 18, 1966.

In late 1971, certain government officials and many Indians became concerned that pre-

1966 money damage claims which the United States could pursue as trustee on behalf of

Indians whose lands were held in trust or restricted status, might be extinguished with the

running of the statute of limitations on July 18, 1972, unless the federal government took

action to identify, evaluate, and where appropriate, file lawsuits to assert those Indian

claims. The Department of Interior ardently supported an extension of the statute of

limitations for pre-1966 Indian claims. 118 Cong. Rec. 28117 (August 14, 1972),

reprinted in [1972] U.S. Code Cong. & Ad. News 3595. Consequently, in 1972,

Congress extended the time in which the U.S. could assert pre-1966 claims on behalf

of Indians to July 18, 1977.

P.L. 92-485, 86 Stat. 803 (Oct. 13, 1972).

Once again in 1977, at the urging of the Department of Interior and the Department of

Justice, Congress extended the federal statute of limitations insofar as it applied to

actions for money damages brought on behalf of Indians with pre-1966 claims.

P.L. 95-103, 91 Stat. 842 (August 15, 1977). Interior and Justice Department

spokespersons testified that many tribes had only recently become aware of their

remedies for pre-1966 claims, and that hundreds of these claims, already identified

and being researched, could not be filed by the U.S. in time to meet the statutory

deadline. H.R. Rep. No. 95-375, 95th Cong., 1st Sess. 6 (1977), reprinted in

[1977] U.S. Code Cong. & Ad. News 1621. This time, Congress granted an extension

until April 1, 1980. P.L. 95-103, supra.

The most recent extension of the statute of limitations occured on March 27, 1980,

in P.L. 96-217, 94 Stat. 126, and is the subject of this lawsuit. In its deliberations on

this extension, Congress heard testimony from several high-ranking Interior and

Justice Department officials. Both executive departments favored another extension.

S. Rep. 96-569, 96 Cong., 2d Sess. 5 (1980). Congress reacted by extending the

limitations period for pre-1966 Indian damage claims until December 31, 1982.

But in addition, Congress added a critical Section 2 to P.L. 96-217, which provides:

Not later than June 30, 1981, the Secretary

of the Interior, after consultation with the

Attorney General, shall submit to the Congress

legislative proposals to resolve those Indian

claims subject to the amendments made by the

first section of this Act [extending the

limitations period] that the Secretary of the

Interior or the Attorney General believes are

not appropriate to resolve by litigation.

Plaintiffs' complaint, filed on September 23, 1982, alleges that defendants have

violated the mandate of Section 2 in that they have decided not only not to litigate

the vast majority of pre-1966 Indian claims subject to the statute of limitations,

but they have also declined to submit legislative proposals to Congress to resolve

those claims deemed inappropriate for litigation. 1/ Plaintiffs contend that, as a

class, all Indians and Indian tribes that have pre-1966 money damage claims

affecting lands held in trust or restricted status, have been materially injured by

this allegedly unlawful agency action. We agree.