Doe BF v. Diocese of Gallup
10 Am. Tribal Law 72 (2011)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Navajo Nation courts must conduct detailed factual and legal inquiries into civil jurisdiction over non-member defendants under both Navajo Nation and federal law, and when addressing a statute of limitations defense in childhood sexual abuse cases involving delayed discovery, the 'reasonable diligence' standard must consider the plaintiff's cultural and psychological circumstances, with such claims to be fully heard and not dismissed on procedural technicalities at a preliminary stage.
Facts:
- In 1984-85, when he was 14-15 years old, John Doe BF was sexually molested by his parish priest, Charles Ciehanowicz, on the Navajo reservation after Ciehanowicz gave him alcohol.
- Ciehanowicz threatened John Doe BF with exposure if he revealed the abuse.
- The Diocese of Gallup, the Franciscan Friars of St. John the Baptist (Baptist Order), and the Franciscan Friars Province of Our Lady of Guadalupe (Guadalupe Order) allegedly supervised, employed, and controlled Ciehanowicz during the time of the abuse.
- These religious organizations allegedly aided Ciehanowicz by transferring him after he was caught sexually abusing other children and continued to assign him to parishes where he had unsupervised access to children.
- John Doe BF experienced various psychological coping mechanisms and did not discover he had been injured by the abuse, or connect his psychological symptoms to the abuse, until May 2007.
- John Doe BF now suffers significant psychological and physical pain, impacting his life and earning capacity, and requires ongoing medical and psychological treatment.
- All defendants (Ciehanowicz, Diocese, Baptist Order, Guadalupe Order) are non-members of the Navajo Nation.
Procedural Posture:
- On November 6, 2007, John Doe BF filed a Complaint for Personal Injuries against Charles Ciehanowicz in the Shiprock District Court (trial court).
- On November 13, 2007, John Doe BF filed a First Amended Complaint, adding the Diocese of Gallup, the Franciscan Friars of St. John the Baptist, and the Franciscan Friars Province of Our Lady of Guadalupe as defendants.
- On March 20, 2008, Defendant Ciehanowicz filed a Motion to Dismiss under Navajo Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) (lack of jurisdiction) and 12(b)(6) (statute of limitations).
- On January 21, 2009, John Doe BF filed his Second Amended Complaint.
- On July 13, 2009, Ciehanowicz renewed his motion to dismiss.
- On August 24, 2009, the Baptist Order and Guadalupe Order joined Ciehanowicz's motion to dismiss.
- On September 1, 2009, the district court scheduled a 'Status Hearing' for September 22, 2009, directing counsel to bring 'evidence and witnesses as may be necessary.'
- On September 22, 2009, at the status conference, the parties argued the motions to dismiss, and John Doe BF submitted an affidavit and journal articles on childhood sexual abuse to the court.
- On January 19, 2010, the Shiprock District Court issued an Order to Dismiss, finding it had jurisdiction but concluding John Doe BF's claim was barred by the statute of limitations because he 'did not present any testimony or evidence other than what he himself stated.'
- On February 11, 2010, John Doe BF (Appellant) filed a Notice of Appeal to the Navajo Nation Supreme Court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
1. Does a district court's determination of jurisdiction over non-member defendants require detailed factual findings and legal conclusions under both Navajo Nation and federal common law? 2. Did the district court err by converting a status conference into a motion hearing to dismiss a personal injury claim based on the statute of limitations, especially when the plaintiff presented an affidavit and articles, thereby failing to provide a reasonable opportunity to present relevant evidence under the discovery rule?
Opinions:
Majority - Per Curiam
1. Yes, the district court's determination of jurisdiction must be based on detailed factual findings and legal conclusions under all relevant laws, including both Navajo Nation law and federal common law. The district court erred by making a conclusory statement of jurisdiction based solely on the Treaty of 1868 without detailed factual findings regarding the location of the abuse or a proper analysis under the federal Montana test. The Court modified its prior precedent to require this detailed inquiry without exception, even when the action occurred on trust land, due to increasing federal scrutiny of tribal jurisdiction over non-members. 2. Yes, the district court erred by converting a status conference into a motion hearing to dismiss on statute of limitations grounds, especially when the plaintiff presented extrinsic evidence. Pretrial conferences, under Navajo Rule of Civil Procedure 16, are intended for case management and settlement, not for trying the merits of a case or ruling on dismissal motions that require factual development. When extrinsic evidence (like John Doe BF's affidavit and articles) is submitted in a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, it must be treated as a motion for summary judgment under Rule 56. This requires all parties to be given a reasonable opportunity to present all relevant material, which John Doe BF was not afforded, including the opportunity for discovery. The district court also erred by weighing the evidence at the motion stage regarding the statute of limitations, as a judge's function at this stage is to determine if a genuine issue of material fact exists for trial, not to decide the truth of those facts. For the 'reasonable diligence' standard in 7 N.N.C. § 602(A)(4), the court must consider the specific circumstances of a Navajo plaintiff, including upbringing, culture, historical trauma, and deference to authority figures, adopting a standard where a person's judgment might be altered by the abuse. The Court emphasized its parens patriae duty to ensure allegations of harm to children are fully heard by a jury.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies the procedural requirements for tribal courts asserting jurisdiction over non-members, mandating a rigorous, dual-pronged analysis under both tribal and federal law to withstand external challenges. It also broadens the interpretation of the 'discovery rule' for statutes of limitations in childhood sexual abuse cases within the Navajo Nation, explicitly incorporating cultural and psychological factors unique to Indigenous plaintiffs. The ruling reinforces proper judicial procedure, preventing premature dismissal of claims by ensuring that pretrial conferences are not used to try cases and that summary judgment procedures are correctly followed, thereby safeguarding plaintiffs' due process rights and promoting culturally informed justice.
