A Fed.ly-recognized Indian Tribe v. USA .

722 F.Supp.2d 1293

MICCOSUKEE TRIBE OF INDIANS OF FLORIDA, a federally-recognized Indian Tribe, Plaintiff,

v.UNITED STATES of America, et al., Defendants.

Case No. 08-23001-CIV.

United States District Court,S.D. Florida.

July 12, 2010.

Claudio Riedi, Felippe Moncarz, Kelly Brooks Smith, Lehtinen Riedi Brooks Moncarz, P.A., Janice Burton (Sibley) Sharpstein, Sonia Escobio O'Donnell, Jorden Burt LLP, Miami, FL, for Plaintiff.

Anna K. Stimmel, Mark A. Brown, John Brett Grosko, Terry M. Petrie, Ty Bair, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Defendants.

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

K. MICHAEL MOORE, District Judge.

THIS CAUSE came before the Court upon Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (dkt. # 134).

UPON CONSIDERATION of the Motion, the Responses, the pertinent portions of the record, and being otherwise fully advised in the premises, the Court enters the following Order.

I. BACKGROUND

This case involves a federally-recognized Indian tribe claiming that certain water management actions by Defendants have caused high water levels on lands to which the Indian Tribe has rights, in violation of the Tribe's constitutional rights. Plaintiff Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida (the “Miccosukee Tribe” or the “Tribe”) is a federally recognized Indian Tribe residing on land in and near Everglades National Park. All “aboriginal” rights that the Miccosukee Tribe had to the lands were extinguished in 1982 as part of a court settlement between the United States and the Seminole Nation of Indians. ¹ The Miccosukee Tribe now holds a perpetual leasehold (the “Lease”) to a 189,000-acre tract of land (the “Leased Area”) to the north of Everglades National Park. The Lease was granted to the Miccosukee Tribe in 1982 by the Board of Trustees of the State of Florida Internal Improvement Trust Fund.

The Leased Area is located within Water Conservation Area 3A (“WCA 3A”). WCA 3A is part of the Central and Southern Florida Project for Flood Control and Other Purposes (the “C & SF Project”). The C & SF Project was authorized by Congress in 1948 to control water flows and levels in South Florida and the Everglades, in order to provide both flood protection and water supply for the developed areas of South Florida. The C & SF Project is operated by The Army Corps of Engineers (the “Corps”) and its local sponsor, The South Florida Water Management District (“SFWMD”). The C & SF Project directs water flow southward from Lake Okeechobee to the Everglades. Some of this water passes through WCA 3A and the Leased Area. Water is released out of WCA 3A through a number of water management structures, including S-12A, S-12B, S-12C, S12D, and S-333. The released water from the S-12 gates goes into the L-28 canal and moves southward through numerous culverts under the Tamiami Trail and flows into Everglades National Park.

On October 28, 2008, the Miccosukee Tribe filed the instant Complaint (dkt. # 1), alleging that Defendants' water management actions have infringed on their constitutional and statutory rights by permitting high water levels to exist in the Leased Area. The Miccosukee Tribe's claims included violations of the Florida Indian Land Claims Settlement Act (Count I); Due Process (Count II); Action in the Nature of Mandamus (Count III); and Equal Protection (Count IV). In an Order dated September 16, 2009, 656 F.Supp.2d 1375 (S.D.Fla.2009), Granting in Part and Denying in Part Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (dkt. # 37), this Court dismissed Counts I, II and III, leaving only the equal protection claim.

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

The applicable standard for reviewing a summary judgment motion is unambiguously stated in Rule 56(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure:

The judgment sought should be rendered if the pleadings, the discovery and disclosure materials on file, and any affidavits show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c). Summary judgment may be entered only where there is no genuine issue of material fact. Twiss v. Kury, 25 F.3d 1551, 1554 (11th Cir.1994). The moving party has the burden of meeting this exacting standard. Adickes v. S.H. Kress & Co., 398 U.S. 144, 157, 90 S.Ct. 1598, 26 L.Ed.2d 142 (1970). An issue of fact is “material” if it is a legal element of the claim under the applicable substantive law which might affect the outcome of the case. Allen v. Tyson Foods, Inc., 121 F.3d 642, 646 (11th Cir.1997). An issue of fact is “genuine” if the record taken as a whole could lead a rational trier of fact to find for the nonmoving party. Id.

In applying this standard, the district court must view the evidence and all factual inferences therefrom in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion. Id. However, the nonmoving party “may not rest upon the mere allegations or denials of the adverse party's pleading, but the adverse party's response, by affidavits or as otherwise provided in this rule, must set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(e). “The mere existence of a scintilla of evidence in support of the [nonmovant's] position will be insufficient; there must be evidence on which the jury could reasonably find for the [nonmovant].” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 252, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986).

III. ANALYSIS A. Standing

The Federal Defendants assert that the Miccosukee Tribe lacks standing to bring its equal protection claim. This Court has already concluded that the Miccosukee Tribe has parens patriae standing to bring its equal protection claim, and that even if the claim had been brought by an individual member of the Tribe, that individual would have had standing pursuant to Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560-61, 112 S.Ct. 2130, 119 L.Ed.2d 351 (1992). Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Fla. v. United States, 680 F.Supp.2d 1308, 1314-15 (S.D.Fla.2010). This Court need not revisit its prior holding. Accordingly, the Federal Defendants' arguments concerning standing are without merit.

B. Res Judicata

The Federal Defendants claim that the Miccosukee Tribe's equal protection claim is barred by the doctrine of res judicata. “Res judicata bars the filing of claims which were raised or could have been raised in an earlier proceeding.” Davila v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., 326 F.3d 1183, 1187 (11th Cir.2003) (internal quotation marks omitted). “The purpose behind the doctrine of res judicata is that the full and fair opportunity to litigate protects [a party's] adversaries from the expense and vexation attending multiple lawsuits, conserves judicial resources, and fosters reliance on judicial action by minimizing the possibility of inconsistent decisions.” Ragsdale v. Rubbermaid, Inc., 193 F.3d 1235, 1238 (11th Cir.1999) (internal quotation marks omitted). “The doctrine of res judicata, or claim preclusion, bars a litigant from raising claims that were raised or could have been raised in a prior action if: ‘(1) the prior decision was rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction; (2) there was a final judgment on the merits; (3) the parties were identical in both suits; and (4) the prior and present causes of action are the same.’ ” DelVecchio v. Internal Revenue Serv., 360 Fed.Appx. 104, 109 (11th Cir.2010) (quoting Davila, 326 F.3d at 1187). “For purposes of res judicata, the prior and present cause of action are the same if they arise ‘out of the same nucleus of operative fact, or [are] based upon the same factual predicate.’ ” Id. “Just what factual grouping constitutes a ‘transaction’ or what factual groupings constitute a ‘series,’ are to be determined pragmatically, giving weight to such considerations as whether the facts are related in time, space, origin, or motivation, whether they form a convenient trial unit, and whether their treatment as a unit conforms to the parties' expectations or business understanding or usage.” Ragsdale, 193 F.3d at 1239 n. 8 (quoting Restatement (Second) of Judgments § 24(2) (1980)).

As an initial matter, any non-tort claim against the United States is barred unless it is brought within six years after the right of action accrues. 28 U.S.C. § 2401(a). ² A civil action against the United States “accrues when a plaintiff knew or should have known of the wrong and was able to commence an action based upon that wrong.” Wild Fish Conservancy v. Salazar, 688 F.Supp.2d 1225, 1233 (E.D.Wash.2010) (citing Shiny Rock Mining Corp. v. United States, 906 F.2d 1362, 1364 (9th Cir.1990)). The Miccosukee Tribe does not contest that § 2401(a)'s six year statute of limitations applies to this action. See Pl.'s Resp. in Opp. to Def.s' Mot. for Summ. J. at 23-27 (“Pl.'s Resp.”) (dkt. # 144). ³ Rather, the Miccosukee Tribe asserts that its equal protection claim is based on actions that took place in 2008. Id. at 25 (stating that “[t]his lawsuit is predicated upon the Corps' actions in 2008”). Specifically, Plaintiff asserts that its equal protection claim is based on “failure to seek a deviation in July of 2008 from the date they were supposed to open the gates under the IOP, and failure to follow the IOP procedure when denying the Tribe's request to keep them open in October, 2008.” Id. at 26. Given that the Miccosukee Tribe concedes that its equal protection claim stems from conduct that occurred exclusively in 2008, it could not be barred by res judicata based on actions that were filed in 2002 and 2005. Id. at 24 (stating that the “underlying facts on which the present action is based did not exist at the time the [2002 and 2005] actions were filed”); see Case No. 02-22778-CIV-MOORE and Case No. 05-23045-CIV-MOORE. Accordingly, the Federal Defendants' argument that the instant matter is barred by res judicata is without merit. ⁴

C. Equal Protection Claim

The Federal Defendants claim that they are entitled to summary judgment on the Tribe's...