Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Cahto Tribe of the Laytonville v. Dale Risling

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


March 21, 2011

CAHTO TRIBE OF THE LAYTONVILLE RANCHERIA,
PLAINTIFF,
v.
DALE RISLING, ACTING REGIONAL DIRECTOR FOR THE PACIFIC REGION, BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, KEN SALAZAR, SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, LARRY ECHO HAWK, ASSISTANT SECRETARY -- INDIAN AFFAIRS, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Garland E. Burrell, Jr. United States District Judge

ORDER DENYING REQUEST TO FILE AMICUS BRIEF

Gene William Sloan, Bert U. Sloan, Melody Sloan, John Omar Sloan, Tasheena Sloan, Allen Sloan, Rachel Sloan, Linda Palomares, Godfrey Sloan, Jeff Sloan, Tonya Sloan Rodriguez, Tammy Sloan, Arturo Gonzalez, Jr., Arica Rene Lopez-Sloan, Mark Britton, Jr., Jose Ochoa, Gabriel Ochoa and Jennifer Sloan (the "Sloan Family") request leave to file a brief as amicus curiae "in support of Defendants' Opposition to [Plaintiff's] Motion for Summary Judgment and [Defendants'] Cross-Motion For Summary Judgment," arguing they will "contribute a critical perspective to the Court's full understanding of this case." (ECF No. 39.)

"A federal district court's decision to grant amicus status to an individual, or an organization, is purely discretionary." United States v. Board of Education of City of Chicago, No. 80 C 5124, 1993 WL 408356, at *3 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 12, 1993) (citations omitted). "Relevant factors in determining whether to allow an entity the privilege of being heard as an amicus include whether the proffered information is timely, useful, or otherwise." Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

The Sloan Family has not explained their delay in seeking leave to file an amicus brief. A Status Order was filed on September 14, 2010, which established the parties' briefing schedule on their cross-motions for summary judgment. (ECF No. 16.) However, the Sloan Family did not request leave to file an amicus brief until March 18, 2011, after the dates passed for Plaintiff to file its motion for summary judgment and Defendants to file their consolidated opposition and/or cross-opposition. Therefore the Sloan Family's request for leave to file an amicus brief is denied.

20110321

© 1992-2011 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.