This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.

Civil Rights
False Imprisonment
Impersonating a Public Officer

Bishop Paiute Tribe v. Inyo County, William Lutze, Thomas Hardy

Published: Aug. 22, 2015 | Result Date: Jul. 30, 2015 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |

Case number: 1:15-cv-00367-GEB-JLT Bench Decision –  Dismissal

Court

USDC Eastern


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Dorothy Alther

Jasmine Andreas


Defendant

John D. Kirby

Margaret Kemp-Williams


Facts

Daniel Johnson was a Bishop Paiute Tribe law enforcement officer. He was arrested and charged with false imprisonment, impersonating a public officer, assault with a stun gun, and battery stemming from a December 24, 2014 incident in which he shot a woman with a Taser while trying to enforce a restraining order against her on tribal land.

Contentions

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS:
The Bishop Paiute Tribe brought a complaint for injunctive and declaratory relief against Inyo County, Inyo County Sheriff William Lutze, and Inyo County District Attorney Thomas Hardy. It sought a declaration that defendants were interfering with the tribe's claimed inherent sovereign authority to stop, detain, and restrain non-Indians on tribal lands, and investigate those non-Indians for possible California state and federal criminal law violations.

DEFENDANTS' CONTENTIONS:
Defendants sought dismissal of all claims. Hardy asserted immunity based on the Eleventh Amendment and the county contended that the sheriff and district attorney acted independently as independently elected officials and that there was no respondeat superior liability. The sheriff and all defendants contended that no federal constitutional, statutory or decisional law had ever declared the existence of the tribe's claimed inherent authority, and further, that there was a lack of the requisite Constitutional Article III case or controversy.

Result

The court dismissed the tribe's claims, finding that the tribe's complaint did not present an Article III case or controversy, and that the tribe's correspondence to Sheriff Lutze stating it intended to comply with Lutze's cease and desist order rendered the claims moot.

Other Information

FILING DATE: March 6, 2015.


#105200

For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:

Email jeremy@reprintpros.com for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390