Fast-forward to the federal courts, where Mr. DeAtley filed a habeas corpus petition. At first, the Tenth Circuit's opinion concerning the matter is rather dry and boilerplate. But on Page 2, we start to see the first sign of woo bubbling out:
On Page 4, we see the nature of the conflict:Mr. DeAtley initiated this proceeding by filing a pro se § 2254 application in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. That court transferred the application to the District of Colorado, where a magistrate judge ordered Mr. DeAtley to file his application on the proper forms. Mr. DeAtley did so, but the magistrate judge then found that Mr. DeAtley’s § 2254 application and its attached 45-page statement failed to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a), which calls for “a short and plain statement of the claim.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). The magistrate judge ordered Mr. DeAtley to file a compliant § 2254 application. In response, Mr. DeAtley filed an amended application. The magistrate judge, “unable to decipher what federal constitutional violations Applicant is attempting to challenge,” ROA at 279, recommended dismissal of the action without prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). Mr. DeAtley objected to the recommendation and filed another amended application. The district court, noting that “neither the Objection nor the Amended Application are intelligible,” id. at 357, adopted the recommendation, dismissed the action without prejudice for failure to comply with a court order and failure to prosecute, denied ifp status on appeal, denied a COA, entered judgment, and denied a motion for reconsideration.
Interesting! Will this be a genuine dispute, a test of the delicate balance among the recognized tribal courts and the state and federal judiciaries? Will it be a genuine but unrecognized Native American band trying to assert its authority? Or will it be a group of loons?Mr. DeAtley’s fourth (and most recent) § 2254 application alleges the State of Colorado lacks jurisdiction over him as a tribal member who has been granted habeas relief by a tribal court.
The nature of the matter is revealed in a footnote.
Okay. Based on the only article I can find about the Latgawa, it's unclear whether we're on the "genuine but unrecognized Native American Band" track or the "group of loons" track. The article's statement that 'about 400 people are members of the tribe, including 30 that have direct blood ties to the Latgawa', might steer us toward the latter option -- 30 out of 400 seems like a rather... loose tribal membership. And the rather snide comments from the federally-recognized Siletz tribe are notable as well. But ultimately this is a side issue, so let's continue the footnote and reach the finale:Although we limit our review to the procedural issue and do not address the
merits of Mr. DeAtley’s claims, we note that Mr. DeAtley contends that the
“Latgawa Indian Tribal Justice Court” has awarded him habeas relief and that the
federal court must honor this ruling.
So Mr. DeAtley tried himself, pronounced himself innocent, ordered himself freed, and demanded that Colorado immediately honor his order. A more efficient approach to habeas relief could hardly be imagined.Although we limit our review to the procedural issue and do not address the merits of Mr. DeAtley’s claims, we note that Mr. DeAtley contends that the “Latgawa Indian Tribal Justice Court” has awarded him habeas relief and that the federal court must honor this ruling. ROA at 75, 290-91. The tribal judge who awarded relief and signed the order was Mr. DeAtley. For example, attached to his first § 2254 application is an “Order” finding that “Alan E. De Atley Tribal Special Counsel, Tribal Judge appointed for life by Chief Judge Newkirk must be released within 1 hours [sic] the same day this has been delivered to any State of Colorado employee.” Id. at 75 (emphasis added). Then it says, Mr. “De Atley must be released this day within 1 hour of this Tribal Courts Order [sic].” Id. The order was signed by “Alan E. De Atley Tribal Special Counsel, Tribal Judge.” Id. at 77 (emphasis added). Similar documents from the “Latgawa Indian Tribal Justice Court” and signed by Mr. DeAtley as the tribal judge were attached to his § 2254 applications in this case. See, e.g., id. at 78-94, 121-37, 139-41.
Sadly for Mr. DeAtley, this streamlined approach has thus far proven ineffective. And given that he is currently 63 years of age, and that his parole eligibility date is May 17, 2056, it appears that Mr. DeAtley will spend the remainder of his life dispensing tribal justice from the confines of the Colorado corrections system.
