No ICRA Habeas Right in Tribal Criminal Contempt Fine

Here is the magistrate’s report in Boyd v. Fort Peck Tribes, adopted by the judge a few days ago — Boyd v Fort Peck Tribes R&R

An excerpt:

On September 10, 2009, Petitioner Roberta Boyd filed this action seeking a writ of habeas corpus under 25 U.S.C. § 1303. Petitioner is proceeding pro se.

The Fort Peck Tribal Court ordered Petitioner to pay a $500.00 fine for criminal contempt. Pet. (doc. 1) at 2 ¶¶ 3-4. A writ of habeas corpus is available under 25 U.S.C. § 1303 “to test the legality of his detention by order of an Indian tribe.” The phrase “detention” has the same meaning as “custody” under28 U.S.C. §§ 2241 and 2254. Imposition of a fine does not constitute custody or detention. Moore v. Nelson, 270 F.3d 789, 791-92 (9th Cir.2001). The writ of habeas corpus is not available. The Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to entertain this action. It should be dismissed.

Leave a Comment

Filed under Author: Matthew L.M. Fletcher, Criminal, Research, tribal courts

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s