In re Conditions at Lake Cnty. Jail

638 F.Supp.3d 1164

IN RE: CONDITIONS AT LAKE COUNTY JAIL

CV 22-127-M-DWM

United States District Court, D. Montana, Missoula Division

Signed November 2, 2022

Timothy M. Bechtold, Bechtold Law Firm, Missoula, MT, Constance Van Kley, Rylee K. Sommers-Flanagan, Upper Seven Law, Helena, MT, for Lake County Inmates.

Robert C. Lukes, Jason Collins, Marisa Lee Heiling, Garlington Lohn & Robinson, PLLP, Missoula, MT, David Brueggen, Pro Hac Vice, Jeffrey Robert Kivetz, Pro Hac Vice, The Sotos Law Firm, P.C., Chicago, IL, for Lake County Jail.

OPINION and ORDER

Donald W. Molloy, United States District Judge

Plaintiffs are inmates at the Lake County Jail in Poison, Montana who allege their conditions of confinement violate the First, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution, as well as the Hellgate Treaty of 1855. (Doc. 8.) Defendant Governor Greg Gianforte (the "Governor" or "Gianforte") seeks to dismiss all claims and crossclaims against him under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (Doc. 27.) Argument on the motion was heard on November 1, 2022. Because the Governor is immune from suit pursuant to the Eleventh Amendment, his motion is granted.

BACKGROUND¹

Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint includes four claims related to conditions of confinement at the Lake County Jail and two classes of inmate: a Conditions Class and a Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribal Members Subclass.² (Doc. 8 at 13-15.) Only two counts are at issue here, Count 1 and 3. Count 1, on behalf of the Conditions Class against Lake County, and the Tribal Members Subclass against all Defendants, alleges that Lake County and the Governor, acting as the State of Montana through its administration of Public Law 280 ("PL 280"), have deprived Plaintiffs of their Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights. (Id. at 13.) The rights specifically mentioned, but without limitation, are rights to due process and equal protection, to be free of cruel and unusual punishment, and of access to the courts. (Id. at 13-14.) Count 3 alleges, on behalf of the Tribal Members Subclass, that Defendants have deprived these plaintiffs of the "right to adequate and cost-free medical care secured to them through the Hellgate Treaty of 1855." (Id. at 14.) Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief on all claims, and monetary damages for the Tribal Members Subclass for medical costs. (Id. at 16-17.) Defendant Lake County also crossclaimed against the Governor, asserting that he is responsible for funding and administering the State's PL 280 obligations, and therefore, the Jail. (Doc. 21.)

I. Hellgate Treaty of 1855

In 1855, the United States and what became known as the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes ("CSKT") entered into the Hellgate Treaty, 12 Stat. 975, creating the Flathead Reservation. CSKT v. Jewell, 2015 WL 12748309, at *1 (D. Mont. May 18, 2015). Pursuant to that Treaty, the CSKT "ceded to the United States most of their aboriginal lands in Montana and Idaho, reserving for their exclusive use the Flathead Indian Reservation—1,245,000 acres in western Montana." CSKT v. Lake Cnty. Bd. of Comm'rs, 454 F. Supp. 3d 957, 961 (D. Mont. 2020). In exchange, the United States promised, inter alia, "[t]o erect a hospital, keeping the same in repair, and provided with the necessary medicines and furniture, and to employ a physician . . . The said buildings and establishments to be maintained and kept in repair as aforesaid, and the employees to be kept in service for the period of twenty years." Treaty, art. 5.

In 1976, Congress passed the Indian Health Care Improvement Act, which established the Indian Health Service and recognized a "major national goal of the United States is to provide the quantity and quality of health services which will permit the health status of Indians to be raised to the highest possible level." Pub. L. 94-437, 90 Stat. 1400 (codified as amended at 25 U.S.C. §§ 1601, 1661). Because the CSKT "is federally-recognized, its members are eligible to receive healthcare from the [Indian Health Service]." Rosebud Sioux Tribe v. United States, 9 F.4th 1018, 1021 (8th Cir. 2021). However, CSKT established its own healthcare system on the Flathead Indian Reservation, which means the United States provides as much funding to the tribal system as it would provide to facilities within the Service. 25 U.S.C. § 1602(7). Here, Plaintiffs' challenge is based on access to these federally funded services, not the sufficiency of the services themselves. (See Doc. 41 at 13 n.4.)

II. Public Law 280

In 1953, Congress enacted Public Law 280 or "PL 280" to grant certain states criminal jurisdiction over Indians on reservations and to allow civil litigation that had come under tribal or federal court jurisdiction to be handled by state courts. See 18 U.S.C. § 1162; 67 Stat. 590. Although Montana was not one of the states originally named in the law, PL 280 § 7 permitted Montana to assume such jurisdiction. Lozeau v. Anciaux, 397 Mont. 312, 449 P.3d 830, 832 (2019); see 25 U.S.C. § 1321. In 1963, the State voluntarily established a consent procedure with the CSKT. See Mont. Code Ann. §§ 2-1-301 to -307. Consistent with this process, the CSKT enacted an ordinance on May 16, 1964, consenting to the State's exercise of concurrent criminal jurisdiction; the ordinance was clarified on May 5, 1965, to include consent to civil jurisdiction. Lozeau, 449 P.3d at 833. On June 30, 1964—and then again on October 8, 1965—then-Governor Tim Babcock issued a proclamation giving effect to the State's assumption. See id; § 2-1-302. In 1993, the CSKT later withdrew their consent to State jurisdiction over criminal misdemeanors, which was affirmed on September 30, 1994 via proclamation by then-Governor Marc Racicot. Lozeau, 449 P.3d at 833; § 2-1-306. As it relates to the interplay between PL 280 and the Hellgate Treaty, PL 280 is recognized as a "valid abrogation of a tribe's jurisdictional treaty rights." Lozeau, 449 P.3d at 834.

LEGAL STANDARD

To survive a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6),³ "a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to 'state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.' " Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007)). "A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Id. Dismissal is appropriate "where there is no cognizable legal theory or an absence of sufficient facts alleged to support a cognizable legal theory." L.A. Lakers, Inc. v. Fed. Ins. Co., 869 F.3d 795, 800 (9th Cir. 2017) (quotation marks omitted).

ANALYSIS

Governor Gianforte is entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity as it relates to both Plaintiffs' claims and Lake County's crossclaim. Moreover, Plaintiffs lack standing to bring a claim premised on a collective right enshrined in the Hellgate Treaty. Accordingly, the Governor is dismissed from this action.

I. Eleventh Amendment

Plaintiffs allege that "[t]hrough Public Law 280, the State of Montana assumed criminal jurisdiction over major crimes committed on the Flathead Indian Reservation," and that the assumption of this "jurisdiction necessarily carries with it attendant responsibilities to tribal members, including those secured through the Hellgate Treaty of 1855" and the Constitution. (Doc. 41 at 8; Doc. 8 at ¶ 50.) Likewise, Lake County alleges a crossclaim against Gianforte for contribution or indemnification on the ground that Gianforte, as "the chief executive office of the State," is ultimately responsible for funding the State's assumption of criminal jurisdiction under PL 280. (Doc. 21 at 14-16.)

"Generally, States are immune from suit under the terms of the Eleventh Amendment and the doctrine of sovereign immunity." Whole Woman's Health v. Jackson, — U.S. —, 142 S. Ct. 522, 532, 211 L.Ed.2d 316 (2021). The Eleventh Amendment provides that "[t]he Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State." U.S. Const. amend XI. Accordingly, the Eleventh Amendment protects states from suits brought by individuals in federal court. See Coal. to Defend Aff. Action v. Brown, 674 F.3d 1128, 1133 (9th Cir. 2012). Nevertheless, under what is known as the Ex parte Young exception, "the Eleventh Amendment does not bar actions seeking only prospective declaratory or injunctive relief against state officers in their official capacities." L.A. Cnty. Bar Ass'n v. Eu, 979 F.2d 697, 704 (9th Cir. 1992) (citing Ex Parte Young, 209 U.S. 123, 155-56, 28 S.Ct. 441, 52 L.Ed. 714 (1908)). "An entity invoking Eleventh Amendment immunity bears the burden of asserting and proving those matters necessary to establish its defense." See Sato v. Orange Cnty. Dep't of Edu., 861 F.3d 923, 928 (9th Cir. 2017) (quotation marks omitted). The Governor has met that burden here, arguing that (1) the claims arise under state, as opposed to federal, law; (2) Plaintiffs and Lake County improperly seek an order directing payment of funds from the State Treasury; and (3) there is no connection between the Governor and the alleged harm.

A. Waiver

As a threshold matter, Lake County argues that the Governor waived his sovereign immunity through the State's assumption of PL 280. He did not. Montana's implementing statute for PL 280 states:

(1) The state of Montana hereby obligates and binds itself to assume, as provided in this section, criminal jurisdiction over Indians and Indian territory of the Flathead Indian reservation and country within the state in accordance with the consent of the United States given by the act of August 15, 1953 (Public Law 280, 83rd congress,

...