Rousseau v. Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe et al

- 1 -
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NORTH DAKOTA
Ronald E. Rousseau,
Petitioner,
vs.
Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe et al.,
Respondents.
Civil No.: 1:24-cv-00249
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION IN PART AND
TRANSFERRING JURISDICTION TO THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH DAKOTA
[¶ 1] 	THIS MATTER comes before this Court on a Motion for Writ of Habeas Corpus,
Amended Motion for Writ of Habeas Corpus, and a Motion for Leave to File Second Amended
Motion for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by the Petitioner on December 12, 2024, December 16,
2024, and January 30, 2025, respectively. Doc. Nos. 1, 5, 9. United States Magistrate Judge Clare
R. Hochhalter prepared a Report and Recommendation in which he recommends the Court dismiss
Petitioner’s Motion for Writ of Habeas Corpus and Amended Motion for Writ of Habeas Corpus
and deny Petitioner’s Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Motion for Writ of Habeas
Corpus. Doc. No. 12. The Petitioner filed an objection on February 24, 2025. Doc. No. 13.
[¶ 2] 	Magistrate Judge Hochhalter concluded this Court lacks personal jurisdiction because none
of the Respondents are located within the territorial jurisdiction of North Dakota and none of the
events giving rise to Rousseau’s petition occurred in North Dakota. Petitioner objects, arguing
McGirt v. Oklahoma, gives this Court personal jurisdiction over the Respondents. See 591 U.S.
894 (2020) (holding that because Congress did not diminish the Creek Nation’s reservation
borders, the original borders were still effective). Petitioner argues because the Fort Laramie
Case 1:24-cv-00249-DMT-CRH Document 14 Filed 02/25/25 Page 1 of 2

- 2 -
Treaty granted the Sioux Nation reservation lands in North Dakota, the Court has jurisdiction over
the Respondents who still, nonetheless, reside in South Dakota.
[¶ 3] 	McGirt is inapplicable here because it did not address the specific personal jurisdiction
question presented in this case. As found by Magistrate Judge Hochhalter, this case is governed
by Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426 (2004). Because most of the Respondents live in South
Dakota, some are in Washington, D.C., and none of the events occurred in North Dakota, the Court
lacks personal jurisdiction over the matter. See id. at 442 (“District courts can grant habeas corpus
relief only ‘within their respective jurisdiction.’”). Accordingly, this Court cannot entertain the
merits of Petitioner’s claims.
[¶ 4] 	When a court lacks jurisdiction over a civil case, in the interest of justice, a court may
transfer the suit to any other jurisdiction in which it could have been brought. See 28 U.S.C.
§§ 1631, 1404, 1406. Magistrate Judge Hochhalter did not recommend transferring this case to the
District of South Dakota because the Petitioner did not consent. Doc. No. 12, p. 8. However, the
Petitioner has now consented to transfer to South Dakota as alternative relief. Doc. No. 13, p. 4
The Court finds the interest of justice favor transferring this case to the District of South Dakota.
[¶ 5] 	Accordingly, the Court has reviewed the Report and Recommendation and the entire record
in this case, including the Defendant’s Objection. The Court finds the Report and Recommendation
to be persuasive. Therefore, the Court ADOPTS, in part, the Report and Recommendation and
ORDERS that this case shall be TRANSFERRED to the United States District Court for the
District of South Dakota for further proceedings.
[¶ 6] 	IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated February 25, 2025.
Daniel M. Traynor, District Judge
United States District Court
Case 1:24-cv-00249-DMT-CRH Document 14 Filed 02/25/25 Page 2 of 2