The opinion of the court was delivered by: Carolyn S. Ostby United States Magistrate Judge
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION MAGISTRATE JUDGE OF UNITED STATES
Plaintiff Nelvette Siemion ("Siemion"), appearing pro se, claims in her Amended Complaint that various federal officials, tribal officials, and private individuals wrongfully (1) deprived her of leasing rights to certain real property; (2) rounded up, seized, and impounded her livestock causing her to incur penalties and costs to recover them; (3) destroyed some of her livestock; (4) assaulted her husband and sons; and (5) sold a horse that belonged to her granddaughter. Am. Cmplt. (Court Doc. 32). In prior proceedings, the Court dismissed all claims against all defendants except those asserted against Defendant Kelly Dee Passes ("Passes"). See Order Adopting Findings and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge (DKT 58).
During prior proceedings, Passes was proceeding pro se. Now, through counsel, Passes moves to dismiss Siemion's claims on several bases or, in the alternative, seeks a more definite statement. Passes' Preliminary Motions (DKT 72). Siemion opposes Passes' motion. Siemion's Resp. Br. (DKT 76).
Having considered the parties' arguments respecting Passes' motion, the Court enters the findings and recommendation discussed below.
This matter's background is thoroughly detailed in the record.
See Order filed Jan. 10, 2012 (DKT 29); Order filed Feb. 1, 2012 (DKT 33); Order and Findings and Recommendations of United States Magistrate Judge filed April 24, 2012 (DKT 57). The Court repeats it here only as necessary to explain this ruling.
Both Siemion and Passes are tribal members. See DKT 15 at 2; DKT 32 at 2, 4; DKT 73 at 5. Siemion mentions Passes only in Counts 1, 2, 4, and 5 of the fourteen counts she asserts in her Amended Complaint. DKT 32 at 2-6, 9-13. She seeks relief against him, however, only in Count 5. Id. at 9-13. Siemion alleges that Passes: (1) conspired with others to deprive her of lands she previously leased for her bison operation, id. at 10-11; (2) cut fences and opened gates allowing her bison to escape and be rounded up and held by others, id. at 11; (3) assaulted her son and husband, id.; (4) "concocted some sort of plan to fraudulently take control of all Crow Tribal Lands," including her land and home, id.; and (5) was involved in the sale of a horse that belonged to her granddaughter at a Bureau of Indian Affairs horse sale, id. at 11-12.
Passes seeks dismissal of Siemion's claims against him arguing that Siemion has failed to: (1) first present her claims against him to the Tribal Court before bringing them in federal court, Passes' Br. (DKT 73) at 4-5; (2) establish that this Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action under Rules 8(a)(1) and 12(b)(1),*fn1 id. at 5-7; (3) bring her claims within the applicable limitations period, id. at 7-8; (4) join as a defendant the Crow Tribe of Indians, a necessary and indispensable party under Rule 19, id. at 8-9; and (5) state a claim upon which relief can be granted as required by Rule 12(b)(6), id. at 9-11. In the alternative to dismissal, Passes seeks an order for a more definite statement of Siemion's claims against him, under Rule 12(e). Id. at 11-14. Finally, Passes requests a hearing under Rule 12(I). Id. at 14.
Although Passes seeks dismissal on several bases, the Court finds dispositive his argument that the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. Rule 12(b)(1) permits a party to seek dismissal if the Court lacks jurisdiction over the subject matter of the dispute. The United States Supreme Court has described the parameters of federal court jurisdiction as follows:
Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. They possess only that power authorized by Constitution and statute, which is not to be expanded by judicial decree. It is to be presumed that a cause lies outside this limited jurisdiction, and the burden of establishing the contrary rests upon the party asserting jurisdiction.
Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994); K2 America Corp. v. Roland Oil & Gas, LLC, 653 F.3d 1024, 1027 (9th Cir. 2011). "A federal court is presumed to lack jurisdiction in a particular case unless the contrary affirmatively appears." A-Z Int'l ...