Sayers-Roods v. Machado

Background

Kanyon Sayers-Roods, proceeding without a lawyer, filed the action for herself and as power of attorney for her mother, Ann-Marie Sayers. The case concerned claims by an Indian plaintiff against a non-Indian defendant arising from events in Indian country. After reviewing the complaint and amended complaint, the court ordered Sayers-Roods to explain why the federal court had jurisdiction and held a hearing on that issue.

Jurisdictional Analysis

The amended complaint identified four possible bases for federal-question jurisdiction: 15 U.S.C. § 1116, 18 U.S.C. § 1151, the Property Clause of the Constitution, and the Commerce Clause. The court found that none provided a basis for jurisdiction as pleaded. Section 1116 concerns injunctive relief in federal trademark-infringement cases, but the court said Sayers-Roods did not appear to assert a trademark claim. Section 1151 defines “Indian country” but does not grant jurisdiction to federal district courts. The Property Clause and Commerce Clause also do not address federal district-court jurisdiction.

Claims and Dispositions

Claim 1 was titled “Tort of Intimidation and Stalking at Healthcare Facility.” The court viewed it as a tort claim and noted Sayers-Roods’s acknowledgment that, under 28 U.S.C. § 1360(a), it should be filed in state court. The court dismissed claim 1 without prejudice to pursuing it in state court.

Claim 2 was titled “Tortious Interference with USPS Rural Route Mailbox and Incoming U.S. Mail.” The court held that this claim was not legally viable, citing the rule that federal law does not provide a separate private right of action for mail fraud. The court dismissed claim 2 without leave to amend.

Claim 3 was titled “Tortious Interference with Tribal Activities, Personnel, and Property within the limits of Indian Canyon.” The allegations included intimidation, harassment, false representation, assault, battery, and a physical attack, which the court viewed as suggesting a tort claim that could be filed in state court. To the extent the claim concerned interference with tribal activities, the court said it should first be resolved by the Costanoan-Chualar Indian Tribal Government of Indian Canyon. Relying on tribal-court jurisdiction principles, the court explained that civil jurisdiction over non-Indians’ activities on reservation lands presumptively lies in tribal courts unless limited by a treaty or federal statute. The court dismissed claim 3 without prejudice to filing it in state court.

Further Amendment and Order

The court stated that Sayers-Roods could file a second amended complaint if she could assert a different claim over which the federal court could exercise jurisdiction. The order gives a deadline ending September 30, 2022, but the text also contains an unclear phrase referring to “no later than July.” The court encouraged Sayers-Roods to seek assistance from the Federal Pro Se Program, which provides free legal information but not legal representation.

Judge Edward J. Davila therefore dismissed the first and third claims without prejudice, dismissed the second claim without leave to amend, and permitted a possible second amended complaint asserting a different claim within federal jurisdiction.