Richard F. Cebull

In this case, Defendant Charles Spotted Elk-Booth, Jr. was convicted by a jury of attempted aggravated sexual abuse but acquitted of related charges including aggravated sexual abuse and kidnaping; the conviction was later reversed on appeal due to an erroneous jury instruction on intoxication as a defense. On remand, the defendant moved to dismiss the superseding indictment, arguing that retrial on the attempt charge would violate the Fifth Amendment's Double Jeopardy Clause because the original indictment failed to properly allege specific intent for the attempt offense and was duplicitous. The court denied the motion, holding that jeopardy had not terminated in a way that barred retrial after reversal of a conviction for the same offense, that any defects in the original indictment were either cured or waived by failure to object before the first trial, and that attempt is treated as the same offense for double jeopardy purposes. The decision relied on precedents establishing that retrial is permitted following appellate reversal and that objections to duplicity must be raised timely.

criminal lawprocedure

The case concerned multiple FOIA requests submitted by plaintiff Christopher Kortlander to the Bureau of Land Management seeking records related to investigations involving him, his business Historical Rarities, Inc., and the Custer Battlefield Museum, including law enforcement actions and forensic testing; responses were delayed in part due to a pending criminal investigation. After the parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment and the court conducted an in camera review of thousands of pages, it granted summary judgment to the BLM and denied the plaintiff's motion. The court held that the agency had conducted an adequate search reasonably calculated to locate responsive documents and properly applied FOIA exemptions, including those protecting confidential sources in law enforcement records under 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(7)(D).

criminal lawprocedure

This case involves a Bivens lawsuit brought by Christopher Kortlander and his businesses against federal law enforcement agents from the Department of the Interior, alleging violations of multiple constitutional amendments stemming from a multi-year investigation into the sale of fraudulent historical artifacts and illegal possession of eagle parts. The investigation led to two searches of the plaintiffs' property in 2005 and 2008, during which items were seized but never resulted in charges, with most property eventually returned. The court granted the defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings and dismissed the complaint with prejudice, finding that claims related to the 2005 search were barred by the statute of limitations, while the remaining claims failed to plausibly allege violations of constitutional rights. The court also denied the plaintiffs' motion to amend the complaint, concluding that the proposed amendments did not cure the deficiencies. Core reasoning centered on the implausibility of the claims, lack of recognized causes of action in some instances, and the sufficiency of probable cause for the searches based on the underlying affidavits.

criminal lawcivil rightsprocedure

In Cox v. Yellowstone County, plaintiff James Cox sued Yellowstone County after his mobile home was seized and sold at public auction under Montana’s agisters’ lien statute (Mont. Code Ann. § 71-3-1203) to satisfy a claimed storage debt, alleging that the process denied him any opportunity to be heard or contest the lien before the deprivation. The U.S. District Court denied the County’s motion for summary judgment and instead entered judgment for Cox, holding that the statute’s enforcement provisions are unconstitutional as written under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. The court reasoned that the statute permits government-assisted seizure and sale of property based solely on an affidavit, with only post-deprivation notice and no pre-deprivation hearing, which fails to provide a meaningful opportunity to be heard as required by established precedent. The ruling applies to the statute on its face, as the court found no circumstances in which it could satisfy procedural due process.

civil rightspropertyprocedure

This case involves claims by individual plaintiffs and personal representatives of two deceased crime victims on the Crow Indian Reservation against the FBI and federal officials, alleging discriminatory failure to investigate or prosecute crimes in violation of equal protection and due process rights under the Fifth Amendment, along with related Bivens and statutory claims. The court adopted the magistrate judge's recommendations and dismissed all individual-capacity claims by the plaintiffs for lack of Article III standing, while allowing certain representative-capacity claims by the personal representatives to proceed against one defendant. The core reasoning was that the individual plaintiffs failed to allege a concrete, particularized, or imminent injury-in-fact, as their alleged harms were abstract, shared with many others, and dependent on speculative chains of causation involving third parties; in contrast, the personal representatives had standing under Ninth Circuit precedent to challenge discriminatory law enforcement practices affecting the victims they represented.

civil rightsfederal powercriminal lawprocedure

This case involved a state prisoner, Indreland, suing Yellowstone County detention facility officials for alleged violations of his First Amendment free exercise rights and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act. The claims centered on the denial of a Satanic medallion, placement of Christian greeting cards under his cell door, segregation from other inmates, and failure to protect him, which he attributed to his Satanist beliefs. The district court adopted the magistrate judge's findings and granted partial summary judgment to the county defendants on the medallion, segregation, failure to protect, and greeting card claims, while dismissing several defendants including the sheriff and undersheriff. The court reasoned that the facility had a legitimate penological interest in restricting chains for safety reasons, that segregation resulted from inmate fights rather than religion, that no evidence connected defendants to the greeting cards, and that §1983 claims could not proceed on respondeat superior grounds alone. Ruling was reserved on remaining issues involving access to Satanic texts pending further briefing.

religious libertycivil rights

The United States sued Robert L. Stephens, Jr. to collect unpaid federal income taxes assessed for tax years 1988 and 1994-2000, seeking to foreclose tax liens on three parcels of real property and related proceeds held by two corporations, Buffalo Brewing Company, Inc. and Montana General Corp. The court granted the United States' motion for summary judgment, entering judgment for $140,195.78 plus interest and allowing foreclosure on Parcels 2 and 3 and the sale proceeds, while denying the corporations' motions. It found that both corporations were Stephens's alter egos and nominees because he exercised sole control over them, used their assets for personal benefit without repayment or documentation, commingled funds, and treated them as extensions of his law practice and residence. The court applied federal tax lien rules under 26 U.S.C. §§ 6321 and 6322, concluding that the liens attached to the properties due to the alter ego relationship. It also granted partial relief to Stephens by conceding no liability for tax year 1999.

taxespropertyfederal powerbusiness & regulatory

The case involved plaintiff Jewell G. Shumaker's action for judicial review of the Commissioner of Social Security's denial of her applications for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income. The court adopted the magistrate judge's findings and recommendations, granting the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and remanding the matter to the Commissioner for further administrative proceedings. The core reasoning was that the ALJ erred by omitting from the vocational expert hypotheticals key limitations supported by the record, including the medically necessary use of a cane and restrictions from mental impairments that prevented the plaintiff from learning basic job tasks. Additionally, the ALJ failed to consider the plaintiff's age, as she was days short of 50 at the time of the decision, which required evaluating her under the 50-54 age category given her work history and impairments.

labor & employment

This case involved a religious student group, Christian Legal Society, challenging a public law school's Student Bar Association for denying it official recognition and funding after the group refused to comply with the SBA's open-membership and nondiscrimination bylaws. The bylaws required student organizations to accept all law students as members without regard to religion or sexual orientation, but CLS limited voting membership to those affirming its Statement of Faith and excluded individuals engaged in what it viewed as unrepentant sexual immorality, including same-sex conduct. The court granted summary judgment to the defendants on CLS's First Amendment claims of free speech, association, and religious exercise violations. It adopted the magistrate judge's findings that the SBA's policies were reasonable, viewpoint-neutral conditions on access to limited public funds and did not unconstitutionally burden the group's rights.

free speechreligious libertycivil rights

In Shiplet v. Veneman, the plaintiff appealed an administrative decision by the Farmers Home Administration denying her loan applications, alleging discrimination under the Equal Credit Opportunity Act. The U.S. Magistrate Judge recommended entering judgment for the defendant after concluding that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie ECOA case, specifically that she did not qualify for the credit sought and that similarly situated applicants outside her protected class received more favorable treatment. The District Judge conducted a de novo review of the plaintiff's objections, rejected challenges to the magistrate's definition of similarly situated borrowers and handling of evidence, and adopted the findings and recommendations in full. The court emphasized that the magistrate's analysis properly distinguished the plaintiff's circumstances from those of other borrowers based on factors like primary lender status and geographic variables. Judgment was therefore entered in the defendant's favor.

civil rightsprocedure

In United States v. Vardaro, the defendant was charged under 18 U.S.C. § 2250(a) with failing to register as a sex offender after moving from Michigan to Montana for work, despite a prior Texas conviction for indecency with a child that required registration under SORNA. The defendant moved to dismiss the indictment, arguing that SORNA's registration requirements exceeded Congress's Commerce Clause authority, violated due process because he received no notice of his obligations, and infringed the Tenth Amendment by commandeering state officials. The court denied the motion, holding that SORNA is a valid exercise of federal power under the Commerce Clause, that due process was not violated based on existing precedents, and that the defendant lacked standing or a viable claim under the Tenth Amendment because Montana law independently required registration and imposed no new burdens on state officials.

criminal lawfederal power

This case involved claims by Cloud Foundation against the U.S. Forest Service regarding the agency's management of the Pryor Mountain Wild Horse Range under the Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act, specifically challenging the 1987 Custer National Forest Plan's designation of Area Q and its position that wild horses are incompatible with wilderness values. The district court adopted the magistrate judge's findings and granted summary judgment to the USFS defendants on all claims. The core reasoning was that the claims constituted facial challenges to agency actions taken in 1987, making them subject to the six-year statute of limitations under 28 U.S.C. § 2401(a), which had expired; the court rejected arguments that the claims were ongoing failures to act, that law-of-the-case or ripeness doctrines applied differently, or that later cases like Pacific Rivers Council altered the limitations analysis.

environmentfederal powerprocedure

This case involved claims by DuBray Land Services, Inc. and James DuBray against Mesa Communications Group, LLC and others, alleging abuse of process, bad faith, and intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress arising from Mesa's conduct in managing a prior lawsuit (DuBray I) between the parties. The district court adopted the magistrate judge's findings and recommendation, granting Mesa's motion for summary judgment and dismissing the remaining claims after an earlier partial dismissal of the abuse of process claim. The core reasoning was that Montana law requires affirmative steps for an entity to become self-insured, with no evidence that Mesa took such steps, and that the emotional distress claims necessarily failed due to the absence of any remaining allegations of intentional or negligent wrongful conduct after resolution of the underlying litigation.

torts & liabilityprocedure

This case involves a judicial review of an Interior Board of Land Appeals (IBLA) decision affirming the Bureau of Land Management's (BLM) forfeiture of 28 unpatented mining claims held by the Dimitrov plaintiffs in the Gallatin National Forest. The forfeiture stemmed from the plaintiffs' failure to timely file a complete small miner waiver certification for claim maintenance fees due for the 1998 assessment year under federal regulations. The district court adopted the magistrate judge's findings after de novo review, granted the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment, reversed the IBLA's decision, and remanded the case with instructions to reinstate all 29 claims once procedural requirements are met. The core reasoning was that the plaintiffs' otherwise timely filing contained only an inadvertent omission of required certification language, which did not demonstrate noncompliance with the substantive waiver criteria, and the BLM should have provided notice and an opportunity to cure under 43 C.F.R. § 3833.4(b) rather than declaring the claims forfeited by operation of law.

business & regulatorypropertyenvironmentfederal power

This case concerns a lawsuit by U.S. cattle ranchers challenging a USDA final rule that lifted a 2003 ban on importing live cattle and certain edible bovine products from Canada, a country with confirmed cases of bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE or Mad Cow Disease). The plaintiffs sought a preliminary injunction to block the rule's implementation scheduled for March 2005, arguing procedural and substantive flaws in the agency's risk assessment and decision-making process. The court granted the injunction, determining that serious questions existed on the merits and that the balance of hardships favored the plaintiffs due to potential irreparable harm to human and animal health. The core reasoning was that the USDA had rushed the reopening of imports without adequate scientific analysis, contrary to the Animal Health Protection Act's directive to protect U.S. health and welfare, while maintaining the status quo would cause no significant harm.

business & regulatoryfederal power

This case involved cattle producers who refused to pay mandatory assessments under the Beef Promotion and Research Act, arguing that the program compelled them to fund generic beef advertising that did not distinguish their specialty grass-fed products, in violation of the First Amendment's protections against compelled speech and association. The petitioners sought judicial review of an administrative order requiring payment of assessments, late fees, and a $12,000 fine. The court upheld the administrative decision, ordering the petitioners to pay the amounts due. It reasoned that the beef checkoff program constituted government speech or, alternatively, that any compelled commercial speech was constitutional because it was germane to a valid regulatory scheme and not unduly burdensome.

free speechbusiness & regulatory

This case concerns a dispute between plaintiff Kathy Weaver and defendant Delta Air Lines, Inc. The court initially denied Delta's motion for summary judgment and granted partial summary judgment to Weaver in an order dated June 29, 1999. Upon the parties' joint and stipulated motion to vacate, the court has now vacated that prior order and decision, which was reported at 56 F.Supp.2d 1190.

procedure

The case involved independent telephone companies suing U.S. West for failing to pay terminating access charges for long-distance calls completed over their networks, claiming breach of contract and related causes after U.S. West stopped paying for calls not originating from its customers. The court granted summary judgment to U.S. West, dismissing all claims. It reasoned that U.S. West had no obligation under tariffs or the filed rate doctrine to pay access charges for traffic from wireless carriers or other long-distance providers whose calls mixed on shared facilities, as FCC rules prohibit such charges on wireless calls and no legal authority supported the plaintiffs' position that U.S. West must pay regardless of being the designated carrier.

business & regulatoryfederal powerprocedure

The case arose from disputes over multiple contracts for the construction, management, and financing of homes on the Blackfeet Indian Reservation using HUD grants, with the Blackfeet Tribe suing Blaze Construction, Lodgebuilder Management, and National Union Fire Insurance for breach of contract, negligence, conversion, fraud, RICO violations, and other claims across nineteen counts, while the defendants asserted counterclaims for breach and interference. The court addressed motions for summary judgment filed by National Union on all counts against it and by Blaze and Lodgebuilder on all counts against them. The court dismissed plaintiffs' tort claims against National Union, analyzed issues including overpayments under the contracts, anticipatory breach, and verification of payment vouchers, and applied its rulings to related claims against the other defendants based on the record and briefs, with some tort claims against Blaze and Lodgebuilder left for further consideration.

proceduretorts & liabilitybusiness & regulatory

This case involved a petition for attorney fees following contempt actions brought by plaintiffs to enforce a 1996 Consent Decree addressing conditions at the Lake County Detention Center, including staffing, medical records, lighting, plumbing, and fire safety. The parties resolved the underlying matters through a Private Settlement Agreement after improvements were made, and plaintiffs sought fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988 and the PLRA. The court determined the petition was timely filed pursuant to its December 2000 order, found that evidence of decree violations and remedial actions satisfied the PLRA requirements for fee awards without needing a prior court ruling on actual violations, and calculated reasonable fees and costs based on prevailing local rates, documented hours, and supporting affidavits. It ultimately ordered defendants to pay specific amounts to plaintiffs' counsel, including $4,546 plus costs to one attorney and $40,184 plus costs to the other.

criminal lawcivil rightsprocedure