United States District Court, D. Arizona
ORDER
DOUGLAS L. RAYES UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Plaintiffs
Sylvia Rico and Leroy Willie, as representatives of the
estates of Edith Willie and Julia Willie, seek judicial
review of the administrative decision by Defendant Office of
Navajo and Hopi Indian Relocation (“ONHIR”)
denying Plaintiffs' relocation benefits under the
Navajo-Hopi Settlement Act. (Doc. 1.) Before the court is
ONHIR's motion to dismiss or, alternatively, motion for
remand, which is fully briefed. (Docs. 21, 26, 27.) The court
heard oral argument on July 13, 2018.
Following
oral argument, Plaintiffs submitted a post-argument brief
requesting the Court stay the matter if it decided to remand
for further agency action.[1] (Doc. 38 at 2.) This matter also is
fully briefed. (Doc. 39.) For reasons stated below,
ONHIR's motion to remand is granted and Plaintiffs'
post-argument motion to stay proceedings is denied.
I.
Background
A.
Navajo and Hopi Indian Relocation Assistance
In
1882, a reservation was established in northeastern Arizona
for the Hopi Nation and “such other Indians as the
Secretary of Interior may see fit to settle thereon.”
Bedoni v. Navajo-Hopi Indian Relocation Comm'n,
878 F.2d 1119, 1121 (9th Cir. 1989). Members of the Navajo
Nation subsequently settled on the reservation alongside the
Hopi. Id. “The Hopi and Navajo [Nations]
coexisted on the 1882 reservation for 75 years, but became
entangled in a struggle as to which [nation] had a clear
right to the reservation lands.” Id. In 1962,
this district court found that the two tribes held joint,
undivided interests in most of the reservation, which was
called the “joint use area” (“JUA”).
Id.
Twelve
years later, after establishment of the JUA failed to solve
inter-tribal conflicts over the land, Congress passed the
Navajo-Hopi Settlement Act in 1974.[2] Id. The Act
authorized the district court to make a final partition of
the reservation after mediation efforts between the nations
had failed. See Sekaquaptewa v. MacDonald, 626 F.2d
113, 115 (9th Cir. 1980). The Act also directed creation of
ONHIR's predecessor, the Navajo-Hopi Relocation
Commission, to provide services and benefits to help relocate
residents who were located on lands allocated to the other
nation as a result of the court-ordered partition. See
Bedoni, 878 F.2d at 1121-22; 25 U.S.C. § 640d-11.
To be eligible for relocation benefits, a Navajo applicant
bears the burden of demonstrating that he or she was (1) a
legal resident on the Hopi Partitioned Lands
(“HPL”) on December 22, 1974, and (2) a head of
household on or before July 7, 1986. 25 C.F.R. §
700.147.
In
1986, ONHIR closed the application process, and it remained
closed to new applicants for nineteen years. See 51
Fed. Reg. 19169 (May 28, 1986). In 2005, acknowledging the
number of late applications, ONHIR began accepting benefit
applications from individuals who applied after the 1986
deadline or had not previously been informed of their
eligibility. § 700.138. This district court later held
that ONHIR's fiduciary duty to displaced tribe members
before 1986 had included an affirmative duty to attempt to
contact and inform potentially eligible individuals of their
right to apply for benefits. Herbert v. ONHIR, No.
06-CV-3014-PCT-NVW, 2008 WL 11338896, at *1 (D. Ariz. Feb.
27, 2008).
B.
Factual and Procedural History
In June
2005, Edith Willie and Julia Willie (both enrolled members of
the Navajo Nation) applied separately for relocation
benefits. (Doc. 1 ¶¶ 14-15, 27-28.) In December
2005, ONHIR denied both sisters' applications, finding
that they “did not reside on HPL during the requisite
period.” (¶¶ 29-30.) In December 2005, Edith
Willie timely appealed ONHIR's decision. (¶ 31.) In
January 2006, Julia Willie and her late husband Jim timely
appealed ONHIR's decision. (¶ 32.) In April 2010, an
independent hearing officer (“IHO”) held an
appeal hearing. (¶ 37.)
In
August 2010, the IHO issued an opinion upholding ONHIR's
denial, finding that the testimony of Edith Willie, Julia
Willie, Sylvia Rico, and Leroy Willie was not credible.
(¶¶ 48-49.) The IHO's ruling became ONHIR's
final decision when ONHIR issued a Final Agency Action on
July 18, 2011. (¶ 58.) Edith Willie passed away in 2014.
(¶ 16.)
On June
29, 2017, Sylvia Rico (as administrator of her mother Edith
Willie's estate) and Julia Willie commenced this action
for judicial review pursuant to 25 U.S.C. § 640d et
seq. and the Administrative Procedure Act
(“APA”), 5 U.S.C. § 701 et. seq.
(¶ 11.) On July 24, 2017, Julia Willie passed away.
(Doc. 12.) On February 5, 2018, Leroy Willie moved for
substitution of himself (as administrator of his mother Julia
Willie's estate) as Plaintiff. (Doc. 23.) On February 16,
2018, the Court granted the motion. (Doc. 25.)
On
February 2, 2018, ONHIR moved pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) to dismiss the case for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction on the basis of both standing and
mootness. (Doc. 21.) In the alternative, ONHIR sought remand
of the case to the agency for further action. (Id.)
In response, Plaintiffs opposed the motion to dismiss, but
agreed that a remand would be proper pursuant to ONHIR's
Management Manual § 1714.3. (Doc. 26.) At oral argument,
the parties agreed that a remand to the agency would be
proper given the change in circumstances surrounding
Plaintiffs' applications.
II.
...