Native Village of Noatak v. Edgar Blatchford, as Commissioner, Department of Community and Regional Affairs, State of Alaska

Caution
38 F.3d 1505·94 Daily Journal DAR 15234·1994 WL 596953·1994 U.S. App. LEXIS 29990·94 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 8252
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitOctober 28, 199493-35380California4,359 words

Opinion

Opinion

Boochever, J.

The Native Village of Noatak (“Noatak”) appeals the dismissal, after remand from the United States Supreme Court and this court, of its action against the Commissioner of the Alaska Department of Community and Regional Affairs (the “Commissioner”). Noa-tak’s action on remand alleged that the Commissioner racially discriminated against Noa-tak by implementing certain regulations under a revenue-sharing statute. The district court dismissed the ease as moot because the Supreme Court had ruled that the Eleventh Amendment barred all claims for monetary and other retroactive relief and because the repeal of the statute mooted Noatak’s claim for prospective relief. We affirm.

BACKGROUND

In 1980, the Alaska legislature enacted a revenue-sharing statute which provided for annual payments to each “Native village government” located in a community without a state-chartered municipal corporation. Alaska Stat. § 29.89.050 (1984). Under the statute, a “Native village government” included any local governing body organized under the Indian Reorganization Act, 25 U.S.C. § 461 et seq. Appellant Noatak fell within the class benefitted by this legislation.

The state attorney general believed the…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.