Dustin Brian LaRoche v. Lower Brule Sioux Tribe Corporation

231 F.3d 456 · United States District Court for the District of South Dakota, Central Division · May 14, 2026 · No. 3:26-CV-03008-KES

Summary

The United States District Court for the District of South Dakota granted Dustin Brian LaRoche leave to proceed in forma pauperis but dismissed his claims against the Lower Brule Sioux Tribe with prejudice. The court held that tribal sovereign immunity barred LaRoche’s claims concerning the administration and payment of General Assistance benefits because he identified no waiver or congressional abrogation of immunity. The court denied his motion for appointment of counsel as moot.

Holdings

  1. A plaintiff may proceed in forma pauperis when the financial affidavit establishes insufficient funds to pay the filing fee; LaRoche satisfied that requirement.
  2. After granting in forma pauperis status, the district court must screen the complaint and dismiss claims that are frivolous or malicious, fail to state a claim, or seek monetary relief from an immune defendant.
  3. Tribal sovereign immunity barred LaRoche's claims against the Lower Brule Sioux Tribe Corporation and its General Assistance Program because he alleged neither a clear tribal waiver nor unequivocal congressional abrogation.
  4. The motion for appointment of counsel was denied as moot after dismissal of the claims.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether LaRoche was financially eligible to proceed in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1).
  2. Whether the complaint was subject to dismissal during screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
  3. Whether tribal sovereign immunity barred LaRoche's claims against the Lower Brule Sioux Tribe Corporation and its General Assistance Program absent an alleged waiver or congressional abrogation.
  4. Whether appointment of counsel should be granted after dismissal of the action.

Disposition

dismissed

Cases Cited (21)

  • Lee v. McDonald's Corp., 231 F.3d 456, 459 (8th Cir. 2000)(followed)
  • Williams v. McKenzie, 834 F.2d 152, 154 (8th Cir. 1987)(followed)
  • Cross v. Gen. Motors Corp., 721 F.2d 1152, 1157 (8th Cir. 1983)(followed)
  • Martin-Trigona v. Stewart, 691 F.2d 856, 857 (8th Cir. 1982) (per curiam)(followed)
  • Key v. Does, 217 F. Supp. 3d 1006, 1007 (E.D. Ark. 2016)(followed)
  • Est. of Rosenberg v. Crandell, 56 F.3d 35, 36 (8th Cir. 1995)(followed)
  • Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (per curiam)(followed)
  • Bediako v. Stein Mart, Inc., 354 F.3d 835, 839 (8th Cir. 2004)(followed)
  • Martin v. Sargent, 780 F.2d 1334, 1337 (8th Cir. 1985)(followed)
  • Ellis v. City of Minneapolis, 518 F. App'x 502, 504 (8th Cir. 2013) (per curiam)(followed)

Showing top 10 of 21.

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…

More from United States District Court For The District Of South Dakota Central Division United States Distric