and Submitted August 30, 2017
from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Washington Ricardo S. Martinez, Chief District
Judge, Presiding D.C. Nos. 2:14-sp-00001-RSM,
W. Ogan (argued) and Howard G. Arnett, Karnopp Petersen,
Bend, Oregon; James Rittenhouse Bellis, Suquamish Tribe,
Suquamish, Washington; for Defendant-Appellant Suquamish
Stoller Hawkins (argued), Office of the Tribal Attorney,
Upper Skagit Indian Tribe, Sedro Woolley, Washington; Andrew
H. Salter, Teton Law Group LLC, Jackson, Wyoming; for
Plaintiff-Appellee Upper Skagit Indian Tribe.
Patricia Rasmussen (argued), Law Offices of Lauren P.
Rasmussen, Seattle, Washington, for
Real-Parties-in-Interest-Appellees Jamestown S'Klallam
and Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribes.
D. Morisset and Rebecca JCH Jackson, Morisset Schlosser
Jozwiak & Somerville, Seattle, Washington, for Real
Parties in Interest-Appellees Tulalip Tribes.
Before: Michael Daly Hawkins and M. Margaret McKeown, Circuit
Judges, and Elizabeth E. Foote, [*] District Judge.
litigation over the treaty fishing rights of the Indian
tribes in Western Washington, the panel affirmed the district
court's order granting summary judgment in favor of the
Upper Skagit Indian Tribe and determining the geographic
scope of the Suquamish Indian Tribe's usual and
accustomed fishing grounds and stations.
Judge Boldt's determination, in 1975, of the
Suquamish's usual and accustomed fishing grounds and
stations, the panel followed the Muckleshoot
analytical framework. At step one, the panel followed a prior
case determining that Judge Boldt intended something
different from the plain text of his findings. At step two,
the panel concluded that the Upper Skagit showed that there
was no evidence before Judge Boldt that the Suquamish fished
or traveled through certain contested areas.
HAWKINS, CIRCUIT JUDGE
treaty fishing rights case, the Upper Skagit Indian Tribe
("the Upper Skagit") filed a Request for
Determination as to the geographic scope of the Suquamish
Indian Tribe's ("the Suquamish") usual and
accustomed fishing grounds and stations ("U&A")
as determined by Judge Boldt in 1975. Specifically, the Upper
Skagit sought a determination that the Suquamish's
U&A determinations do not include Chuckanut Bay, Samish
Bay, and a portion of Padilla Bay where the Upper Skagit has
its own court-approved U&A determinations ("the
Contested Waters"). On cross-motions for summary
judgment, the district court concluded that Judge Boldt did
not intend to include the Contested Waters in the
Suquamish's U&A determinations and, accordingly,
granted summary judgment to the Upper Skagit. We have
jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Reviewing de
novo, we affirm.