Hess v. U.S. Dep't of the Interior

1

ISAAC WILLIAM HESS, Plaintiff, v. US DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, et al., Defendants.

Civil Action No. 1:22-cv-03385 (CJN)

United States District Court, District of Columbia

July 10, 2023

ORDER

CARL J. NICHOLS, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Isaac Hess, appearing pro se, seeks a declaratory judgment that the Cherokee Nation District Court has exclusive jurisdiction over a child custody and visitation dispute. The Complaint contains few factual allegations, but based on the parties' briefing, it appears that a state court in Idaho awarded Hess's wife full custody of the couple's children. Shortly after the Idaho court rendered its judgment, the Cherokee Nation District Court dismissed a separate custody action filed by Hess for lack of jurisdiction. Instead of appealing that dismissal, Hess filed this suit, contending that the Cherokee court has exclusive jurisdiction over all custody and visitation issues arising from his divorce proceedings.

Specifically Hess asks this Court to issue a declaratory judgment “that the Cherokee Nation District Court has jurisdiction over all tribal members for all civil matters not limited by Congress regardless of where they live including [his custody dispute].” Compl. ¶ 41.7 ECF No. 1. He names as defendants the Department of the Interior, the Secretary of the Interior, Cherokee Nation, and the Principal Chief of the Cherokee Nation. He also moves to join as defendants the Commissioner of Indian Affairs and a judge on the Cherokee Nation District Court. The federal and Cherokee defendants filed separate motions to dismiss.

The Court will grant both motions. As the defendants point out this case presents multiple jurisdictional defects, but the Court will focus on one relevant to all defendants (including the parties Hess seeks to join)-redressability. To establish redressability, Hess must show that his alleged injuries-the Cherokee court's dismissal of his case and the loss of custody-will likely be remedied “by a favorable decision.” Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 561 (1992) (quotations omitted). But granting Hess the relief he seeks here would not undo the Cherokee court's dismissal or the Idaho court's custody determination; indeed, there are no Idaho defendants in this case at all. As a result, this Court would simply be issuing “an abstract and advisory judicial pronouncement” on the scope of tribal jurisdiction. Firearms Policy Coalition v. Barr, 419 F.Supp.3d 118, 127 (D.D.C. 2019); see also Pls.' Opp'n to Cherokee Nation's Mtn. to...