4 NICS App. 164, HOOPA VALLEY IHA v. HOOPA VALLEY TRIBAL COURT (February 1997)
IN THE HOOPA VALLEY TRIBAL COURT OF APPEALS
HOOPA VALLEY INDIAN RESERVATION
HOOPA, CALIFORNIA
Hoopa Valley Indian Housing Authority, Petitioner
v.
Hoopa Valley Tribal Court, Respondent
Clarence Lewis, Sr., Real Party in Interest.
No. C-96-027 (February 13, 1997)
SUMMARY
Petition for writ of mandate directing trial court to reverse its denial of Petitioner’s Motion for Relief from Dismissal. Mandamus cannot compel discretion. Finding that Petitioner seeks an order compelling a discretionary act, and also noting that Petitioner could have utilized ordinary appeals process, we deny petition.
FULL TEXT
Before: Elbridge Coochise, Chief Justice; Charles R. Hostnik, Justice; Douglas W. Hutchinson, Justice.
This matter came before the Hoopa Valley Tribal Court of Appeals pursuant to the Hoopa Valley Indian Housing Authority’s Petition for Writ of Mandate, filed on October 15, 1996. Petitioner files this petition pursuant to Hoopa Valley Code, Title 3, Rule 22.
Procedural History
In August of 1995 Clarence Lewis interviewed for a position with the Hoopa Valley Indian Housing Authority. The Housing Authority ultimately hired a non-Indian for the position, whereupon Mr. Lewis filed a grievance.
On November 14, 1995 Clarence Lewis filed an appeal with the Tribal Employment Rights Commission (hereinafter “TERO Commission”) following the denial of his grievance by the Hoopa Valley Indian Housing Authority (hereinafter “Housing Authority”). The TERO Commission held a hearing on the matter on February 5, 1996. In its February 23, 1996 Decision After Hearing, the TERO Commission found that the Housing Authority had violated an express provision of Tribal Ordinance 2-80 (amended April 27, 1995) in hiring a non-Indian instead of Mr. Lewis.
4 NICS App. 164, HOOPA VALLEY IHA v. HOOPA VALLEY TRIBAL COURT (February 1997) p. 165
The Housing Authority appealed the TERO Decision on the grounds that it was arbitrary, capricious, and not in accordance with Tribal law nor supported by substantial evidence in the record. The parties were notified that a hearing on the motion was scheduled to take place on August 6, 1996.
The Housing Authority, through its legal representative, failed to appear at the hearing, whereupon the trial court dismissed with prejudice the Housing Authority’s appeal of the TERO Decision. The Housing Authority subsequently filed a Motion for Relief from Dismissal, which the trial court denied. It is from this denial of the Housing Authority’s Motion for Relief from Dismissal that the Housing Authority’s Petition for Writ of Mandate follows.
Discussion
First, this Court notes that Petitioner had the opportunity to appeal the trial court order through the ordinary appeals process. Title I, § 1.7.03 and Title III, Rule 22 both contemplate that an aggrieved party will file a notice of appeal with the Court of Appeals and proceed with the appellate process. Petitioner raises issues which are properly addressed as part of an appeal. Petitioner chose, instead, to file a Petition for Writ of Mandate.
This is a case of first impression in the Hoopa Valley Tribal Court of Appeals. The Hoopa Tribal Code contains no provision governing the use of the writ. Issuance of a writ of mandate is an extraordinary measure which is discretionary and usually reserved for those exceptional circumstances in which no other form of relief is available.1
Mandamus cannot control discretion; rather, it “lies to compel performance of ministerial act or mandatory duty where there is a clear legal right in plaintiff, a corresponding duty in defendant, and a want of any other appropriate and adequate remedy.” BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY, 5th Ed. Where, as in this instance, a court is not under a duty to determine a matter in a particular manner, a writ of mandate will not lie. In order for this Court to issue a writ of mandate, Petitioner must establish that there is a clear ministerial duty and a clear right to its performance.
The trial court in this matter dismissed Petitioner’s appeal of the TERO decision because
4 NICS App. 164, HOOPA VALLEY IHA v. HOOPA VALLEY TRIBAL COURT (February 1997) p. 166
Petitioner failed to appear at the hearing. Dismissal for failure to appear was clearly within the trial court’s discretion.
Petitioner then moved the trial court for an order granting relief from that dismissal. Petitioner relied upon Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(1), which provides that the court may grant relief from a final judgment, order, or proceeding. Denial of Petitioner’s Motion for Relief from Dismissal was within the trial court’s discretion.
Petitioner now seeks an order from this Court compelling the trial court to take action which is discretionary. Petitioner has not established that a clear ministerial duty exists whose performance this Court must compel through issuance of a writ of mandate. Furthermore, Petitioner had the opportunity to appeal the trial court order through the ordinary appeals process. The time for filing a notice of appeal has now expired.
Order
Based on the foregoing, Hoopa Valley Indian Housing Authority’s Petition for Writ of Mandate is hereby denied.
Federal law, while not binding upon this Court, is useful in providing guidance:
The issuance by the Court of an extraordinary writ authorized by 28 U.S.C. § 1652(a) is not a matter of right, but of discretion sparingly exercised. To justify the granting of any writ under that provision, it must be shown that the writ will be in aid of the Court’s appellate jurisdiction, that there are present exceptional circumstances warranting the exercise of the Court’s discretionary powers, and that adequate relief cannot be obtained in any other form or from any other court.
Sup. Ct. R. 20.1.