David Zaughing Horse Robinson,

Chairman, ~awaiisuTribe of T e j o n
P . O . Box 1547
Kernville, CA 93238
(661) 378-1085 1- '

Attorney f o r Plaintiff, PRO SE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KAWAIISU TRIBE OF TEJOM, 1

by its Chair-man, David 1 NO. l:Og-CV-O1977-OWW-SMS
Laughing Horse Robinson, and )
DAVID LAUGHING HORSE ROBINSON ) PLAINTIFFS'
As Representative of t h e Class)
of Kawaiisu Tribe of Tejon 1 OPPOSITION
Persons, and 1
DAVID LAUGHING HORSE ROBIMSON,) TO DEFENDANT
1
Plaintiffs, 1 COUNTY OF KERN
V* 1
1
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR, ) MOTION
Secretary KEN SAIAZAR, 1
in his official capacity and ) TO
COUNTY OF KERN, 1
S t a t e of California, 1 DISMISS
1
Defendants, )
-and- 1
1
TEJON MQUMTAIH VILLAGE, LLC )
Real P a r t y in Interest. )

Defendant, Kern County s e e k s to s t r i k e

allegations and dismiss the Complaint in whole or in part
with or w i t h o u t prejudice.
I, David Laughing Horse Robinson, oppose
Defendant Kern County's Motion To is miss the Complaint and
asks the Court to deny Defendant's Motion.
David Laughing Horse Robinson v. Ken Salazar: Plaintiff Opposition ToMotion
ToDismiss.doc

X also am requesting from t h e Court a Continuance

of the February 2 2 , 2 0 1 0 Motion to Dismiss hearing for 90
Days, to on or about May 2 4 , 2010.
One of the claims in t h i s action is a CEQA claim.
County of Kern did not follow CEQA rule 2ll67.8(a) when
conducting the December 21, 2 0 0 9 Settlement Conference
where #&allparties shall meet." The Department of Interior
was not noticed and Tejon Mountain Village LLC attorneys
were not in attendance. The only attorneys who could s e t t l e
t h e case were P l a i n t i f f , a c t i n g Pro S e and County of Kern,
insufficient to accomplish the goal of saving t h i s Court's
tune*
Tejon Mountain Village LLC has not yet served me
a copy of t h e i r response to t h e Complaint and after service
I will need time to respond.
The attached EXHIBIT 18 is a letter to the
California Attorney General citing t h e attached letter from
California Indian Legal Services (CILS). This
correspondence i l l u s t r a t e s that I have been making an
effort to secure legal representation since before filing
the Complaint and am still active in t h e process of
securing representation. I have not heard back from the
California Attorney General yet. CILS was late in assessing
their office conflict of interest, turning me down for
representation on December 15# 2009. I was forced to f i l e
t h e case Pro Se to meet the 30 day CEQA deadline and retain
t h e rights of myself, the " ~ r i b e "and the " C l a s s u to
proceed. Therefore, I need the extension of t i m e to secure
an attorney.
David Laughing Horse Robinson v. Ken Salazar: Plaintiff Opposition ToMotion
ToDismiss.doc

Today I discovered, after being declined by t h e

Court on a Request f o r E n t r y of Default that I need to re-
serve Defendant, Department of I n t e r i o r . Apparently* t h e
Personal Service I paid for to the Justice Department and
the Department of I n t e r i o r is flawed in some way. Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 4 (i)(4), Extending Time,
allows f o r "a reasonable time to cure." Ken Salazar, of the
Department of I n t e r i o r , is a necessary party to this action
to c l a r i f y t h e CEQA f a c t s and exhibits, and must be brought
before the court. Their first Summons allowed 60 days f o r
Response and I expect t h e second to be t h e same. As such,
the above reasons form reasonable cause and create the need
to continue the February 22, 2010 hearing for 90 days.
County of Kern's Motion to Dismiss makes
assertions that entirely misconstrue the Complaint and this
case as a whole.
F i r s t , all claims are being made by a l l three
Plaintiff's and a l l six claims are specified as to t h e
p a r t i c u l a r Defendant; if the words "BY ALL PLAINTIFFS" need
to be added to the top heading of each Claim, that is minor
and can e a s i l y be accomplished in an Amended Complaint
after I am f u l l y served by all t h e parties and a l l parties
are before t h e court.
County of Kern's claim that none of t h e three
plaintiffs have standing to bring this case defy's CEQA
21177(a), < b ) and (c) and exceeds CEQA requirements to
bring a noncompliance claim forward. CEQA 2ll77(a) s t a t e s
that when the grounds for noncompliance are presented
"orally or in writing by any person during the public
David Laughing Horse Robinson v. Ken Salazar: Plaintiff Opposition ToMotion
ToDismiss-doc

comment periodtf an objection to approval can be brought

forward. Plaintiff, David Laughing Horse Robinson is an
"'any person" who d i d speak orally and in writing on these
issues before and during t h e public comment period. David
Laughing Horse Robinson has a legal r i g h t , under CEQA, to
go forward with his claim because he did in fact
p a r t i c i p a t e d u r i n g the public comment period. These oral
and w r i t t e n comments are referred to in t h e Compliant
(p.7:10-22, ~xhibits14,15,16) CEQA 21177(b) allows for a
non-compliance action when "that person objected to the
approval of the project orally or in writing during the
public comment period and CEQA 21177(c) c l e a r l y provides
for the "Tribe" and " C l a s s " to act as plaintiffs where it
states: "does not preclude any organizationsw "if a member
of that organization has complied with subdivision (b)."
As an Individual U.S. C i t i z e n I have established
in my Complaint a fundamental r i g h t to bring this case
forward; I am being deprived o f property and it's use. I
have a right to life and liberty and not having my job
threatened or see public retaliation in print when I voice
my free speech. I have a r i g h t to religious freedom and t h e
right to worship when and where I wish. I also have a human
r i g h t to expect clean, ample water and air free of
pollution and to enjoy nature's plants, b i r d s and vista's.
The Complaint also established the protected
r i g h t s that I have as an individual Native American to
b r i n g this case forward: Being deprived of property, the
use of property, my h u n t i n g and fishing r i g h t s on that
property, access to medicine and p l a n t foods, t h e honoring
 -w- momson v. ken Salazar: Plaintiff Opposition ToMotion
~VIW
ToDismiss.doc

of land contracts signed by treaty, Presidential and

Congressional acts, both thousands of acres in reservation
trust land and smaller allotments, the r i g h t to ask my
trustee, t h e U.S. Government and the Judiciary to look into
improprieties and illegalities with regard to my rights and
how and why my land and other rights have been taken, the
r i g h t n o t to be treated as a slave and property or held in
servitude to prevent from exercising my r i g h t s , the right
to practice religion in our traditional holy places when
and where I wish, right to advocate for my relatives when I
am a Most Likely Descendant by prehistoric and historic
territory, by blood, and by ancestry from Treaty.
In the Defendants ~otionto Dismiss they cite Fed. Rules
C i v . Proc., Rule 8(a). On the Contrary P l a i n t i f f has met
the sufficient short and plain statement standard
established by t h e U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Conley v.
Gibson, 355 U . S . 41 (1957) that Rule 8 ( f ) " a l l pleadings
shall be so construed as to do substantial justicew and
"adequately set forth a c l a i m " to give "the respondents
fair notice o f it's basis. W e believe this principle does
facilitate a proper decision on the merits in this case.'
Marshall County Health Care Auth. v. Shalala, 300 U . S . App.
D.C. 2 6 3 , 988 F.2d. 1221, 1225 ( D . C . Cir. 1993}
"plaintiff's allegations of fact must be accepted by the
Court as true and a l l reasonable inferences should be
construed in the p l a i n t i f f s favor." Aerovias De Mex., S.A.
De C.V. v. MattlMediation B d . , 211 F. Supp. 2d 1
"allegations of the complaint should be construed favorably
to the pleader."
David Laughing Horse Robinson v. Ken Salazar: Plaintiff Opposition ToMotioa
ToDi.miss.doc

The claim before this C o u r t is simple; I am part

of the whole of a class of people c a l l e d the Kawaiisu. We
are not a corporation derived from property or stock you
purchase on Wall Street, we are humans of a particular pre-
historic lineage. There are Tribal members who have voting
rights and there is a separate class of Kawaiisu some of
which are too young to vote. The harm to me individually is
self evident, destroying my ancestors graves, taking of
land, religious practices and so on. The Kawaiisu own
everything collectively and n o t individually, therefore I
am personally harmed.
A Tribal Chief is recognized as representing a
Nation. My ability to stand alone and/or represent or
advocate for the whole group is reinforced by the State and
Federal rules regarding the i n h e r e n t r i g h t s of Most L i k e l y
Descendants to advocate f o r t h e i r Tribe such as I d i d
during the public comment period. It is also reinforced in
the Court record. In Mattz v. Axnett, 412 U.S. 481 (1973)
the individual Yurok, Xlamath River Indianf Raymond Hattz
intervened to return five gill nets that had been
confiscated by a California game warden claiming they w e r e
stored within his Tribe's Indian Country. His case, as one
t r i b a l person, resulted in t h e reaffirmation of the Tribe's
Reservation and Indian Country shows how one Indian can
advocate for rights that benefit t h e whole Tribe. A l s o ,
E l o u i s e Pepion Cobell, ET A L . , v. Gale A. Norton No. 05-
5 0 6 8 was originally filed with each of Cobell's 5 tribal
council members representing the t r i b e .
David Laughing Horse Robinson v. Ken Salazar: Plaintiff Opposition ToMotion
ToDismiss,doc

A t r i b a l c h i e f can act on behalf of the Council

and Indian Tribes and Individual Indians have the broadest
leeway under the law. The authority of Chiefs of American
Indian Nations to represent t h e i r tribes is a formative
element of United States jurisprudence. Native American P r o
Se representatives are to be given an opportunity to b r i n g
cases forward where the trustee and fiduciary duties of t h e
government are not being performed. This a u t h o r i t y
establishes that a Tribe may appear directly in c o u r t Pro
Se and w i t h o u t representation by an attorney. Chief Raymond
Yowell w a s permitted to represent Western Shoshone National
Council Pro Se in No. 95-16599, OK APPEAL FROM DC# CV-S-95-
232-LDG, Nevada ( L a s Vegas). Johnson and Graham's Lessee v.
William M c l n t o ~ h 2~ 1 U.S. (8 Wheat.) 5 4 3 (18231, begins
w i t h a r e c i t a t i o n of the "authority of t h e chiefs who
executed [the] conveyance" at issue t h e r e i n . Id., at 572.
The facts in that case showed the chiefs' authority granted
by t h e i r people. In Northeast Woodland-Coos Tribe v.
Department Of Social Services, (not reported in F. Supp.
See Addendum.) C i v . No, 92-40149-GN (U.S.D.C., D, HA, 1993)
' t h e tribe appeared pro se against the state." In Cherokee
Indians Of Hoke Co. Tribe v. S t a t e Of North Carolina, et
al., 829 F.2d 1119 (4th Cir., 1987) t h e Fourth C i r c u i t
denied the motion of the t r i b e , appearing pro s e , for
appointment of counsel. This refusal to relieve the tribe
of i t s perceived burden of appearing pro se clearly implies
t h e propriety of such proceeding. Fraass S u r v i v a l Systems,
Inc* v. Absentee Shawnee Economic Development Authority,
and Absentee Shawnee Tribe of Oklahoma, 817 F.Supp. 7
 David Laughing Horse Robinson v. Ken Salazar: Plaintiff Opposition ToMotion
T~Dismiss~doc

(S.D., MY, 1993) addresses the issue raised by Kern County

about Corporations. "Absentee Shawnee Economic Development
Authority desired to proceed pro se and was opposed but the
4 Court said: ASEDA is not a corporation, partnership, or
unincorporated association, but an agency of the Shawnee
tribal government. That presents a novel question: whether
an Indian tribal government mst be represented by counsel
in this C o u r t . There do not appear to be any precedents on
point either in this c i r c u i t or elsewhere. The Absentee
Shawnee Court held: ASEDA is not barred from appearing pro
se by the rule against pro se appearances by corporations.
The establishing statement for Individual
standing and Tribal standing is stated in the first
paragraph of the Complaint where roll number and heritage
are provided (Complaint, p.2:2-13.) Furthermore, Plaintiff
David Laughing Horse Robinson is the first of his T r i b e to
attend College and learn how to access t h e resources to
bring this complaint to Court.
The Complaint s t a t e s several claims upon which
relief can be granted. The injuries that s t a t e a claim for
relief are well defined as CEQA d e f i c i e n c i e s : (Complaint,
p. 33:l-25, p.38:18-25) notice to stockholders but n o t to
Most L i k e l y Descendants {MLD)" omitting exhaustive MLD
search, sacred site, burial and property destruction and
theft of remains (Complaint, p.8:l-9, p.39:6-21) Department
of Interior not being noticed about a project on Trust
land. T r i b a l Rights (Complaint, pp.50-52) and individual
injuries of retaliation (Complaint, p.43:6-18). Relief is
straightforward in final statements (Complaint, pp. 56-60)
and the CEQA relief asking f o r injunction or stay of t h e
NOD is w i t h i n the CEQA law.
A "complaint should not be dismissed for failure
to s t a t e a claim unless it appears beyond doubt that the
plaintiff can prove no s e t of facts in support of his claim
w h i c h would e n t i t l e him to relief. Conley v. Gibson, 355
U.S. 41, 45-46 ( 1957). A party appearing P r o Se is not
trained in courtroom procedure and is to be held "to less
stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by
lawyers." Haggy v. Solero, supra, 547 F.2d at 1364, A Pro Se
party ia also to be given wide opportunity to amend a
complaint and dismissal is not necessary." The Federal
Rules reject the approach that pleading is a game of skill
in which one misstep by counsel may be decisive to the
outcome, and accept the p r i n c i p l e that the purpose of
pleading is to facilitate a proper decision on the merits."
Maty v. Grasselli Chemical C O . ~303 U.S. 197 (1938)
"Pleadings are intended to serve as a means of arriving at
f a i r and just settlements of controversies between
litigants. They should n o t raise barriers which prevent the
achievement of that end.^ Plaintiff f i l e d t h e Complaint
with 60 pages, plus e x h i b i t s , and believes that a case
involving more t h a n 150 years of c i v i l r i g h t s violations
has a better chance of early resolution when t h e
presentation of Exhibits is included in t h e f i r s t pleading.
his could save the Court time by establishing the merits
and supporting evidence at t h e onset.
Claims made Pro Se on behalf of a Tribe cannot be
compared to the requirements barring the same for a
David Laughmg Horse Robinson v. Ken Salazar: Plaintiff Opposition ToMotion
ToDismiss.doc

Corporation. The Kawaiiau are e n t i t l e d to all human rights

guarantees of the U.S. Constitution and t h e United Nations.
Plaintiff's have never asserted in this action that they
are a Corporation. Corporations gained rights under t h e 14th
Amendment in 1886 b u t Native Americans w e r e restricted from
t h e 14" Amendment benefits (Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U . S . 94
(1884)) until we w e r e granted c i t i z e n s h i p in 1924. Native
Americans have always been treated separate under the law.
The Honorable United States Supreme Court Justice Joseph
Story wrote in his 1833 Constitution Commentaries &I094
"Indians, from the first settlement of the country, were
always treated, as d i s t i n c t ^ though in some sort, as
dependant nations." This followed in the writing of the
Commerce Clause where Indians were s e t out separate for it
to apply to them. The U.S. Government required that T r i b e s
select one person that they c a l l e d a "chief" to sign a
Treaty on b e h a l f of t h e T r i b e , representing the whole
community. In those cases the "chief" ie acting as being in
Pro Se, representing the people in the group. I should not
be put in a Catch22 because of t h e time requirements of
CEQA t h a t forced me to produce a Pro Se filing.
This claim comes before t h e Court because t h e
County of Kern chose to ignore Kawaiisu Tribe of Tejon land
issues noticed in writing and verbally two months before
their vote for the project. Plaintiff David Laughing Horse
Robinson is clear in his correspondence during the public
continent period and statements in t h e Complaint: the
Kawaiisu Tribe of Tejon are a Federally Recognized Historic
Tribe w i t h a Reservation and are not Mission Indians. Mattz
David Laughing Horse Robinson v. Ken Sdazar: Plaintiff Opposition ToMotion
ToDismiss.doc

v, Arnett, 412 U.S. 481 (1973) "allotment provisions...rather

than indicating an intention to terminate the reservation,
are completely consistent with continued reservation
status." Tribal members receive services l i k e Indian TAMF
but are n o t receiving Native American College Scholarships
and other services benefits that are gained when your
Tribal name is on the Federal Register. Absence from the
Federal Register does not terminate a. tribe's government-
to-government dependent Ration r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h the United
S t a t e s but q u i t e
to the contrary it establishes the
Kawaiisu Tribe as an independent n a t i o n existing solely on
its own, with its own set of laws and support systems t h a t
have no oversight by the United S t a t e s or other Nations,
This was understood by Spain and Mexico and brought forward
by the Guadalupe Hidalgo Treaty o f 1848 and in Dred S c o t t
v. Sandford,[l] 60 U . S . (19 How.) 393 (1857). We also fall
under the jurisdiction of the United Nations Declaration on
the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. September 13, 2007 and
claim a l l rights and p r i v i l e g e s of the above in which Pro
Se representation f o r the Kawaiisu Tribe of Tejon and it's
Class of Citizens is allowed. The United S t a t e s has t h e
authority to represent its citizens in any way, by any
means it sees reasonable w i t h o u t q u e s t i o n and so goes it
f o r the Kawaiisu Tribe, but I must add we do not do this by
choice but out of necessity.
The Department of Interior uses t h e term
"reaffirm" to correct the oversight of a Historic Tribe not
appearing on t h e Federal Register and makes a clear
distinction from newly recognized Tribes. (Exhibit 19)
David Laughing Horse Robinson v. Ken Salazar: Plaintiff Opposition ToMotion
ToDimiss.doc

Federal Register, July 12, 2002, "'Three of the s i x tribes

became newly recognized since the last publication. The
other three t r i b e s were omitted from earlier Federal
register publications of the Tribal E n t i t i e s
List."". ..reaffirmed the formal recognition of the King
Salmon T r i b e , t h e Shoonaq' Tribe of Kodiak, and the Lower
Lake Rancheria, on December 29, 2000. The reaffirmation
acknowledged that an administrative oversight had occurred
and that the three tribes had been omitted...*'H.R. 4 8 02
February 16, 2006, "Federal r e c o g n i t i o n of t h e Burt Lake
Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians is hereby reaffirmed."
L a s t l y , if the Court grants Defendant Kern
Countyrs motion, t h e P l a i n t i f f s CEQA claims may be time
barred which will diminish and prejudice t h e three
Plaintiff's and cause unnecessary harm. Plaintiff has
followed California's CEQA laws and procedures, Defendant
has not. My rights and t h e Tribes basic inherent rights of
maintaining our ancestors and t h e i r cemeteries will be
forever destroyed and the ethnocide committed, BAKER v.
C m , 369 U . S . 186 ( 1 9 6 2 ) "the p a r t y seeking relief
allege..,such a personal stake in the outcome..." Some of the
burial grounds are mass graves resulting from t h e active
years of An A c t for t h e Government and Protection of
Indians, April 22, 1850, and amended 1860. The same l e g a l
questions in the Amistad Trials come into play: humans
being treated as property and these former wards of Spain
being illegally kidnapped, detained and t h e i r property
removed,
 1
In the interest of Justice, the February 22, 2010
2 hearing should be continued for 90 days so that all parties
3 are before the court.
4 And, for a l l the reasons s e t forth above,
defendant Kern County's motion, to dismiss should be denied
5
and respectfully requests the Court enter an Order,
6

8 Dated: February 03, 2010 #-I

10

11 Attorney f o r Plaintiff PRO SE

12

13

14

15

16

17

13

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

%A0 72
(Rev. Sf821
 avid Laughing Horse Robinson
Kawaiisu Tribe of Tejon
P.O. B o x 1547
Kemville, CA 93238

Office of t h e A t t o r n e y General
Stake of California
1300 X Street
Sacramento, CA 95814
Re: California Indian Legal Services (CILS)
and URGENT Request for Legal Assistance
Case Number - 1: 09-CV-01977-OWW-SMS
C a l i f o r n i a U.S. Eastern District Court

Dear Attorney General Edmund G* Brown Jr.,

On November 18, 2009 your office was Personally

Served w i t h a copy of the Complaint for the action
e n t i t l e d : David Laughing Horse Robinson, ET v. Ken
Salazar, ET Mi.

Your office was served for t w o reasons: a) this

case has a CEQA claim and b) this case i s a C i v i l Rights
case. Department of I n t e r i o r and County of Kern are
Defendants; Tejon Mountain Village is the Real Party in
interest.

The claim comes about after an MOD filed by County of Kern

on October 13, 2 0 0 9 , On Thursday, October 22, 2009 I made
phone contact with Dorothy Alther. Senior Staff Attorney of
California Indian Legal Services {CILS), to represent the
Kawaiisu T r i b e of Tejon in a claim regarding t h e Tejon
Mountain Village Development.. During the phone c a l l Ms-
Alther of CILS asked me to email her the documents
pertinent to the tribe*^ claim, which I did on October 26,
2009,

Because a CEQA claim has a 30 day filing deadline that

commences with the MOD, I was required to file the case on
Movember 10, 2009 and d i d so PRO SE. The filing includes as
Exhibits the documents I emailed to Ms. A l t h e r .
On November 2 3 , 2009, Ms* Alther sent me an email saying
she had seen the Tribe's case mentioned in -the news and
that she was s t i l l reviewing the paperwork X had emailed.

On December 3 , 2009, County of Kern filed a Motion for

Dismissal, not on the merits of the case but saying that I
cannot represent the Tribe or the claims Pro Se* The
hearing is scheduled for February 22, 2010.

On mcembr IS, 200gF Ms. Durotkky Alther of C a l i f d a

Indian Legal Services issued a denial letter (see attached
letter) ,
Because California Indian Legal Services (CILS) has turned
down our request for representation the Kawaiisu Tribe of
Tejon requests that the California Attorney Generals Office
pruvide the funding for -gal C-51 on behalf of the
tribe to proceed in this case.

the Kawaiisu Tribe of Tejon feels that there are mediatory

circumstances, that CILS has committed to, that prejudice
the Xawaiisu T E W of Tejm and also create an &air
economic situation for our tribal aaefflibers, CILS has made a
decisgon to legally repxesent a Gmup of T d i a n s that are ,

currently being supported financially by the corporate

Defendant in our case. O u r tribe bas nu funds a v U L e and
has legitimate CEQA and Reservation c~~ to bring before
the court.
The Federal funding for CILS is under the oversight of
California and it. is California's responsibility to make
sure that t h i s funding is not used to create a legal fight
between. Indians. Our case does not oppose or support any
other group of Indians.
Sincerely,

Cc:
u.S. Departaaent of the Xnterior, Office of the Solicitor,
u.S. Department of Justice
CALIFORNIA INDIAN LEGAL SERVICES

December 15,2009
D E P A M E N T OF THE INTERIOR
Bureau of Indian ATfalrs
lndhn Entities Recognized and Eligible the former name &om the list, WEhave
To Receive Sewlces From the United
States Bureau of Indian Afbirs
AGENCY: Bureau af h h ABahs,
Interior.
ACTICV: Notice.
cha~ges,the tribe's farmer name i s
included wit11 the n ~ ~w b a name.
l We
will continue to list the tribe's former
n n m ~for several years before d~opping
also made seve~alcomctions. To &idin
ident..!@bg correci5ms, the bibe's
previomly listed name is incIuded with
the b-ihal name,
The listed entities me acknowledged
to have the immunities and privileges
avaC~ableto other fedeidly
achowhdged I n d i a W ~ bySv h t w of
their government-to-govermmt
relationship with f i e Untt8d States a$
well as the mspomsibjlities,powm,
limitations and obligatfons of'suck~
bfbas.W e bave continned the practiw
of l i s k g the Alaska Native entitie3
separately solely fm the purpose of
facilitating identification of &em and
reference to them given t h large
~ Cahuilla Reservation, CaIffomia
number of complex Native names.
Indim Tribal Entities Within the
Contiguous 48 States &cognized and
Eligible To Receive Services From the
United States Bureau ofh d i a Affairs
~ Capitan Grmde Band QF Riegueno
Absentee-Shawnee Tribe of hdims of
OkIahoma
A ~ u aCaliente Band of CahuilIa Indians
&lifo&ia
Big Valley Band of Porno hdim of the
Bi vaney Rmcherh, C a l i f o r h
Blacbeet Tribe of h e Blarkfeet Indian
Reservation of M~ntana
Blue Lake Ramheria Cabfomia
Bridgepark Paiute Indian Colony of
~lifamia
Buena Vista Rmcheria of Me-Wuk
Indians of California
Bwns Paiute Tr!h of the Burns PaWe
Indian Colony of Omgm
Cabazon Bmd of C&uitla Mission
Indians of t h Cabazon
~ Reservation,
Cdifamia
Cachil DeHe Band of Wintun Indians of
€ Colusa h d i m Community of the
Colusa Rmcheria, Cdifomia
Caddo Indim Tribe of Oklahoma
C & h u i hBand ofMission b&ans of the
Cahto hdian T d x of the Laykonville
R a c h e ~ a ,Califom21
Califomkt Valley Mwok Tribe,
Califoruia {fomerly t h e Sheep Ranch
Rmchmh of Me-Wuk h d h n s of
California]
Camp0 Band of Di~gumo Mission
Indians of the h p o Indian
Reservation, Ca$ifomia
Misston hdfans of California:
Barona Group of&pitan Grmde Band
of Mission Indians of t h e Barma ,
Resewation, CaliIornia
Viejag @a~onLong1 Group of &piton
G m d e Band of M k i a n hdims of
the Vie jas Reservation, Cabfoda
Catawba Indian Nati~n[aka Catawba
Tribe of South ~ ~ ~ i n a ~
Cayuga Nation of Few York
Cedarville gaucheria, Calffomia
~ ~ ~ Q I I haimU E TI ~~ the
~ E
Che~uehueviReservation, California
Cher-he Heights hdim C o m m d t y of
the Trinidad Ranche~a,California
Cherokee Nation, Oklahoma
Cheyem+Arapaho Tribes of Oklahoma
Cheyenne River S b x x Tribe of the
Cheyenne River R e m a t i o n , South
4- l ~ W ~ ~ b ~ M m m ~ d { ~ m > :
a. a~ W n g W m M ~ p ~ ~ M & d ~ W B ~ ~ ~ m ~ h ~
b- n placing the e m & wfar mfiectb and m e k g following ow &maw bushes practices. I mmdik fWWr wfh W i
business's pmdm for ml[e&ng artd processing mrreswndmm formtlirtg. On he stme day mt ~~~ !s
~ a ~ f u r ~ o n & r n m 3 r n g , ~ & ~ i n ~
a seaw mv&w mw g e mewtd.
 1
.. - -.
--. ..--.
. .---
mEwJe
T[TLE.Da~dLau~hingHorse ~ o b i n & Kawaiisu Tribe ofTejou
v. Ken 5alazax Corn@ of Kern, Te.jon 3 k m r a i n liiUage LLC 1:w-cv-o1m-oww-safs

ATTACHMENT TO PROOF OF SERVICE BY FIRST-CMSS M A I L C I V I L (PERSONS SERVED)

(This Attachment is far us8 wit11 form POS-030J
NAME AND ADDRESS OF EACH PERSON SERVED BY MAIL:
Name of Person Sewed

Fow Embarcadem Center, Suite 2 4 0

Sm Francisco, C.4 94111
I

Ken SaIazx
V.S. Department of Inmior

Ken Salaxx I
K.5 .B p m e n t of Justice I

{Proof of Service)
(661) 378-1085
Attorney fox Plaintifff PRO SE

TO THE COURT', ALL PARTIES AHD THEXR RESPECTIW COUNSEL OF

%CORD :
NOTXCE IS HEREBY GIVEN that pursuant to Public

Resources Code Section 21167*4# Plaintiff filed and served

a REQUEST FOR HEARING as to t h e Fourth C l a i m , CEQA Bon-

Compliance, Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq, in

the above-captioned m a t t e r . Complaint for this action w a s

filed on November loà 2009 and t h i s Request for Bearing and

Notice of Request f o r Searing f a l l s w i t h i n 90 days of that

filing.
Dated: February 5 , 2010 Respectfully Submitted,

David ~ a u g h i nHorse
~ Robinson
Attorney f o r Plaintiff Pro Se
 David b u g h i n ~Hmse Robh3on
ZIiairman, Kawaiisu Tribe of Tejon
P.O. Box 1547
Kemville, CA 93238
[661) 378-1085
TELEWlHENO: FW.MO.IWotisS-
&MMt-/Opttinafl.

-ATTORNFV FW f~awtfrplamtiffpro SE
. . United States District Court
T&+.restreet. ~ook
si~~~rABSRess:2500 1501, Fresno. CA 9372 1
MAILINGADDRESS:
c n ~ ~ ~ o a p ~ ~ o e Eastern District of California
BRANCHIW&
Laughing Horse Robinson, KawaiisuTribe
PET~TI~NER;PUMNT~FF:D~~~~
of Tejm
Department of Interior, Ken Salazar, Coanty
RESPONDEWIDEFENOANT:U.S.
of Kei-n, CA and Tejon Mountain ViBa~e,LLC

I
(Do not use this Proof of Service to show swhx of à Summons Èn C m p f e h i t )
1. 1amovert8yearsofageandnotapartytothisaction~famaresidentoforemptoyedmthecountywherethemailing
tooK place.
2. My residenceorbusinessaddressis:
477 Buriando Road, KeraviUe, CA 93238

3. ~n {date): 02/05/2010 ~ <crty a~ state):

I m a i from Bakersfield. CA
the following documents (specify]:
NOTICE OF H U N G OF REQUEST FOR HEARING AS TO FOURTH CLAIM
CEQA NON-COMPLIANCE Piirsoant to 21 167.4<b)

5. Tho envefooe was addressed and mailed as fo!lows:

a. Namecfpersonserved:
b. Adtfress of person sewed:

-7. .is tnuyand correct(-

! declare under penalty of perjury under the iaws of the Stah of Calrttifpia that thefofewmg

Date: February 05-2010

n
 ATTACHMENT 7'0 PROOF OF SERVICE BY FIRST-CLASS M A I L C I V I L (PERSONS SERVED)

MAME AH0 ADDRESS OF EACH PERSON SERVED BY W L :

Name of Pmon Sewed Address (number, street. citv. and ZLO code)

Ebmd G.Brown Jr.

C-A Office of the Aflmey G m m l
 Laughing Horse Robinson
airman, Kawaiisu T r i b e of Tejon
P.O. Box 1547
Kernvilie, CA 93238
(661) 378-1085
Attorney for P l a i n t i f f , PRO SE
\
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KAKAIISU TRIBE OF TEJON, 1

by i t s Chairman, David 1 Case No. 1:09-cv-01977-0WW SMS
Laughing Horse Robinson, and )
DAVID LAUGHING HORSE ROBINSON )
As Representative of the Class) REQUEST
of Kawaiisu Tribe of Tejon 1
Persons, and 1 FOR
DAVID LAUGHING HORSE ROBINSON,)
) HEARING
Plaintiffs, 1
V* 1
1 AS TO
U . S . DEPARTMENT OF IHTERXOR, )
Secretary KEN SAIAZAR, 1 FOURTH CLAIM
in his official capacity and )
COUNTY OF KERN, 1 CEQA MOB-COMPLIAMCE
S t a t e of California, )
) PURSUANT TO
Defendants. 1
-and- 1 21167.4 (a)
1
TEJOM MOUNTAIN VILLAGE, LLC )
Real Party in Interest. 1

Plaintiff hereby f i l e s a REQUEST FOR HEARING as to t h e

Fourth Claim, CEQA Non-Compliance, in the above-captioned

matter. Complaint for this action was filed on November 10,
2009 and this R e q u e s t for Hearing and a Notice of Filing of
Request for Hearing fall within 90 days o f t h a t filing.

Dated: February 5 , 2010 Respectfully Submitted,

David ~aughingHorse Robinson

Attorney for ~ l a i n - t i f fPro Se
 -
ATTORNEYOftPARTYWiTHOUTATTOBNEfflWWtSfçMBwnwtttsr
anrfafttfss):

David Layehing Horse R o b k

Chaimaaaa, Kawaiisii Tribe of Tejou
P.O. Box 1547
Kemville, CA 93238
661) 378-1085
TELEPHONEW.: FAX NO. tOsSonatj:
&UW.ADDRESSKKSWSK
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ y m ~ f t e i - mPro
P l aSei n t i f f
- United States District Court

--
PROOF OF SERVICE BY FIRST-CLASS MAtLÑCtVlL

{Do not use this Pmof of SÈivlc tci show sewlea of a Summons and Camptithtt)

2. M y residence or business address is:

477 Burlando Road, M e , CA 93238

3. On fdate;: 02/05/2010 I mifedfrom fcaty end state): Bakersfield, CA

the following documents (spBCtfy}:
REQUEST FOR HEARING AS TO FOURTH CLAIM
CEQA NON-COMFLLkMCE Pursuant to 21167.4(a)

4 I served tnà documents by enclosing them in an envelope and (check one):

a. a depositing ?9 seated envelope wi8i the United States Postal Service witti the postage ditty prepaid.
b. placing the e d o p for m!!ectMand m a m g foftwhg ow Wharf business pm@tcw.1 am re&i!y fam- with lhis
business's macCce for cotlecttng 8ttd processing correspondence for mailing. On the same day that coi~~spondwce fs
placed for (?ol!ect!on and matting, (t is deposited In the ordinary course of bifshesswfth the United States Postal Service in
a sealed envelope with postage fu!ty prepaid.
5 . The envelope was addressed and mailed as toBows:
a. Nçmçofpersonserve

declare under penalty of pequry under the laws of the Slate of California that the foregoing is hue anciepct

Date: February 05.2010

( -

+
L

PROOF OF SERVICE BY FIRST-CLASS MAIL-CIVIL

AEMaCounddCafitcfns
as a/d Cede ss
rtocetjure, +ma,WSÃ
WfTCCJtfftin* Cff Ot?^
(Proof of Service)
POS-B30[Wwilanuwt.'iO'St
 POS430(?)
c%sEwmER
SWRT TITLE David L a ~ a Horse
g R o h s m Kaw&u Tribe of Tejon c17-o9,7 -oR$.-sh,is
- v. Ken s~&u, County of Kern, Tejm Mountah Village LLC

F-$
' 2~mm2 ATTACHMENT TO PROOF OF SERVICE BY FiReT4 LASS MA1L-CWL pa5=LCJA
9
~ T , : I :x@
F?:t.~.,, am-, :, (PERSOFJS SERVED)
(Pro07 of Service)