Navajo Nation, AKA the Navajo Tribe of Indians v. United States of America, State of Arizona

668 F.2d 1100 NAVAJO NATION, aka The Navajo Tribe of Indians, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, State of Arizona, Defendants-Appellees. Nos. 80-5471, 80-5837. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted July 15, 1981. Decided Feb. 24, 1982. Simon H. Rifkind, New York City, argued, for plaintiff-appellant; Mark H. Alcott, Marvin Wexler, Paul Weissman, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison, New York City, George Vlassis, Katherine Ott, Vlassis & Ott, Phoenix, Ariz., on brief. Russell A. Kolsrud, Asst. Atty. Gen., Phoenix, Ariz., for State of Ariz. Jerry Jackson, Thomas Pacheco, Dept. of Justice, Washington, D. C., for U. S. Geoffrey L. Graybill, Deputy Atty. Gen., Sacramento, Cal., for State of Cal. and its Atty. Gen. Jeanne S. Whiteing, John E. Echohawk, Boulder, Colo., Calvin Wilson, Busby, Mont., for Cheyenne Tribe. R. Anthony Rogers, John Michael Facciola, Glenn P. Sugameli, Wilkinson, Cragun & Barker, Washington, D. C., Thomas J. Lynaugh, Lynaugh, Fitzgerald, Schoppert & Skaggs, Billings, Mont., for Crow Tribe and The Confederated Salish & Kootenai Tribes. Reid Peyton Chambers, Sonosky, Chambers & Sachse,…

Appellant Navajo Nation appeals the district court’s order staying its federal action. We reverse. 1

I. Facts

The Navajo Nation brought this action under 28 U.S.C. § 1362 seeking a declaration of the tribe’s rights to the Little Colo *1101 rado River under its treaties with the United States and various federal statutes and orders.

The State of Arizona moved to dismiss the complaint for a lack of federal jurisdiction, arguing that the Navajo’s claims should be decided as part of the state proceeding concerning the Little Colorado pursuant to the Supreme Court’s decision in Colorado River Water Conservation District v. United States, 424 U.S. 800 , 96 S.Ct. 1236 , 47 L.Ed.2d 483 (1976) (Akin) 2

The district court (Cordova, J.) denied Arizona’s motion to dismiss, thereby recognizing that it had jurisdiction over the claim and that the amended complaint stated a good cause of action. At the same time, however, the district court, sua sponte, entered an order staying the federal action pending the trial and determination by the State Court of Arizona of the rights of claimants.

Appellant filed a notice of appeal on June 12, 1980, more than 30 days after entry of the stay.…

dissenting:

I dissent for the reasons set forth in my dissents in Northern Cheyenne Tribe v. Adsit 668 F.2d 1090 (9th Cir. 1982) and San Carlos Apache Tribe v. Arizona, 668 F.2d 1098 (9th Cir. 1982). In this case Navajo Nation does not seek a general stream adjudication. For the reasons set forth in my dissent in San Carlos Apache Tribe I would remand with instructions that the suit be dismissed.