Opinion
Civil Action 18-996-JWD-EWD
08-11-2023
BILLY BURKETTE v. EAST FELICIANA PARISH SHERIFF JEFFREY TRAVIS, ET AL.
NOTICE
ERIN WILDER-DOOMES, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Please take notice that the attached Magistrate Judge's Report has been filed with the Clerk of the U.S. District Court.
In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), you have 14 days after being served with the attached report to file written objections to the proposed findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendations set forth therein. Failure to file written objections to the proposed findings, conclusions and recommendations within 14 days after being served will bar you, except upon grounds of plain error, from attacking on appeal the unobjected-to proposed factual findings and legal conclusions accepted by the District Court.
ABSOLUTELY NO EXTENSION OF TIME SHALL BE GRANTED TO FILE WRITTEN OBJECTIONS TO THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT.
MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Before the Court are two nearly identical Motions for Declaratory Judgment (“Motion”), filed by Billy Burkette (“Plaintiff”), who is currently representing himself. Because the Motion is procedurally deficient in several ways, it is recommended that the Motion be denied.
I. Background
Plaintiff claims to be a member and Chief of Police of the “the Louisiana Band of Choctaw Indians” (“LA Choctaw”), which according to Plaintiff, is a tribe recognized by the State of Louisiana but not by the federal government. Plaintiff alleges that prior to the Louisiana Purchase, the LA Choctaw had treaties with Spain and France; that Article 6 of the Louisiana Purchase “promises” to enter into a treaty with the LA Choctaw and to treat the LA Choctaw favorably until the treaty is ratified; and that the U.S. Government has not fulfilled its obligations to the LA Choctaw under the Louisiana Purchase. Plaintiff further contends that, in 1978, the State of Louisiana “made an official finding recognizing the sovereign Statius [sic]” of the LA Choctaw and sent a request to the President, both Houses of Congress, and the Department of Indian Affairs requesting that the LA Choctaw be granted federal sovereign status, but the request has been ignored. Plaintiff argues that the treaties, Article 6 of the Louisiana Purchase, and the 1978 request by the State all establish “that The Louisiana Band of Choctaw are sovereign.”
In light of the failure of the President, Congress, and Department of Indian Affairs to address the State's request, the Motion seeks a judgment from this Court declaring the LA Choctaw sovereign. Plaintiff contends this Court “has the inherent power to issue” such a judgment, and also has “the specific authority from Congress to make [a] finding of sovereignty” with respect to the LA Choctaw.
II. Law and Analysis
There are several procedural deficiencies that warrant denial of Plaintiff's Motion for an order from this Court federally recognizing the sovereignty of the LA Choctaw. First, he has not asserted a claim for tribal recognition in his Amended Complaint. The Declaratory Judgment Act (“DJA”), 28 U.S.C. § 2201, allows federal courts to declare the rights and legal relations of any interested party. The procedure for obtaining a declaratory judgment under the DJA is governed by Fed.R.Civ.P. 57, and “[a]s such, ‘the requirements of pleading and practice in actions for declaratory relief are exactly the same as in other civil actions.'” Since the DJA is only a procedural device that creates no substantive rights, the plaintiff's declaratory relief must be premised on an independent cause of action. As Defendants Jeffrey Travis, Greg Phares, Kyle Ardoin point out, Plaintiff did not assert a cause of action for declaratory relief. Plaintiff's Amended Complaint asserts that he has been targeted, wrongfully prosecuted, arrested and held under false charges made by the Defendants to impede his running for the U.S. Congress and that he has been unable to campaign in East Feliciana Parish by the acts and collusion of Defendants. Plaintiff asserts these claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. While the Amended Complaint briefly mentions the State's recognition of the tribe and the LA Choctaw's desire to follow upon the State's 1978 request to the federal government for federal recognition, the causes of action and the relief sought by Plaintiff in the Amended Complaint arise out of Plaintiff's civil rights claims. The Amended Complaint does not seek federal recognition of the LA Choctaw. Plaintiff's request for declaratory judgment is improper because the request does not relate to the claims in his lawsuit. To the extent that Plaintiff's Motion is an attempt to assert another Complaint raising new claims without seeking leave of Court or paying the applicable filing fee, it is inappropriate. See, e.g., Schwarze v. Wainwright:
By filing a motion that contains an entirely separate set of allegations - as well as purportedly adding a new defendant and attempting to name a class of plaintiffs - Plaintiff has essentially attempted to file an entirely new civil complaint disguised as a motion. Plaintiff would need to seek leave from the Court in order to add more parties or claims, which additionally demonstrates that his motion is an inappropriate procedural mechanism. Fed.R.Civ.P. 15. Should Plaintiff wish to proceed on these claims, he should file a new civil action and pay the required filing fee, as would be expected of any civil litigant.
Second, as noted in the Court's Ruling denying Plaintiff's motion to appoint an attorney, it is not clear that Plaintiff has authority from the tribe to seek federal recognition. Third, Plaintiff cannot represent the tribe before the Court because he is pro se, and a Native American tribe that is not federally recognized must be represented by counsel. Finally, Plaintiff's request for federal recognition is not raised against the proper defendant. Claims for judicial review of denials of, or declarations for, federal recognition must be brought against the United States, typically through the Secretary of the Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, as “the Secretary now recognizes tribes and consequently determines whether Indian groups are eligible for federal benefits such as reorganization.” The currently named Defendants cannot take any action in response to Plaintiff's request for federal recognition of the tribe. For all of these reasons, Plaintiff's Motion is procedurally deficient and should be denied.
III. Recommendation
Because Plaintiff's Motions for Declaratory Judgment are procedurally improper in several ways, IT IS RECOMMENDED that both Motions For Declaratory Judgments filed by Plaintiff Billy Burkette, be DENIED.