Rousseau v. Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe, et al.

Summary

The United States District Court for the District of South Dakota adopted a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation in Ronald E. Rousseau’s petition for habeas relief under 25 U.S.C. § 1303 and 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The court dismissed Rousseau’s non-habeas claims without prejudice, dismissed all respondents except Kimberly Craven and Brenda Claymore, overruled his objections, and granted his motion to amend only to the limited extent that the amended allegations and exhibits could be considered in evaluating his habeas claims. The court ordered the remaining respondents to respond and address detention and exhaustion of tribal remedies.

Holdings

1. Rousseau's claims for declaratory, injunctive, disciplinary, disqualification, and jail-shutdown relief are beyond the relief available through his habeas petition and were properly dismissed without prejudice to refiling in a separate civil action.
2. In a § 1303 habeas case, the proper respondents are the persons or entities exercising legal control over the challenged custody; the CRST and the other named individuals lacked authority to provide the requested habeas relief, while Kimberly Craven and Brenda Claymore appeared to be proper respondents.
3. A petitioner must be detained for a federal court to have jurisdiction under § 1303, but the record at this stage was insufficient to determine whether Rousseau remained detained; requiring the remaining respondents to brief detention was therefore proper.
4. Rousseau had not shown that he exhausted tribal court remedies or that exhaustion should be excused; the magistrate judge properly directed the remaining respondents to brief exhaustion.
5. The motion to amend was denied insofar as it sought to add improper respondents or revive and expand non-habeas claims, but granted to the limited extent that the court could consider the amended allegations and attached exhibits in deciding the habeas petition.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Rousseau could combine habeas claims under 25 U.S.C. § 1303 with claims for declaratory, injunctive, disciplinary, and other non-habeas relief in the same petition.
2. Which respondents are proper respondents in a § 1303 habeas proceeding challenging tribal custody.
3. Whether the record established detention sufficient to invoke federal jurisdiction under § 1303.
4. Whether Rousseau had exhausted tribal court remedies or established grounds to excuse exhaustion.
5. Whether Rousseau should be permitted to amend the petition to add respondents and additional non-habeas claims and to supplement the record with amended allegations and exhibits.

Disposition

other