Dickerson, Alexander v. Bureau of Indian Affairs et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
ALEXANDER DICKERSON,
Plaintiff,
v.
BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS and LAWRENCE
WILLIAM BRUNETTE,
Defendants.
OPINION and ORDER
25-cv-704-jdp
Plaintiff Alexander Dickerson, proceeding without counsel, alleges that defendants
fraudulently deprived his family of its interests in federal Indian lands. Defendant Bureau of
Indian Affairs moves to dismiss Dickerson’s claims against the Bureau pursuant to Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Dkt. 7. The Bureau argues that the complaint should be dismissed
because, among other reasons, it is barred by sovereign immunity.
The court concludes that sovereign immunity applies because Dickerson’s allegations
and a warranty deed incorporated into the complaint by reference show that the government
claims an interest in the federal Indian lands at issue. Defendant Lawrence William Brunette
died before Dickerson brought this case, which precludes Dickerson from proceeding against
Brunette. I will grant the Bureau’s motion and dismiss the complaint without leave to amend.
BACKGROUND
The background is drawn from the complaint and the warranty deed incorporated into
it by reference, which I may consider on a motion to dismiss. See Tellabs, Inc. v. Makor Issues &
Rts., Ltd., 551 U.S. 308, 322 (2007).
Case: 3:25-cv-00704-jdp Document #: 21 Filed: 11/25/25 Page 1 of 4

2
Dickerson brought a small claims action in the Sawyer County Circuit Court against
the Bureau and Brunette. Dkt. 1-1. The Bureau removed the complaint to this court. Dkt. 1.
In the complaint, Dickerson alleges that Brunette, under the alias Lawrence William
Manypenny, filed a fraudulent warranty deed to 80 acres of “federal Indian Land in the 1980s.”
Id. at 5. The warranty deed, which was recorded in July 1980, says that the land was purchased
by the United States in trust for Brunette. Dkt. 20-3 at 2. Dickerson alleges that Brunette
“claimed a false identity as direct descendant of the Manypenny family who inherited the land
through probate.” Dkt. 1-1 at 5. The land, according to Dickerson, belongs to the family of
Mandy F. Manypenny. Dickerson says his late wife, Charlotte Lois Manypenny Dickerson, “is
listed as Mandy F. Manypenny’s rightful heir on her official [Bureau] Will and Testament.” Id.
Dickerson adds that when Brunette filed the fraudulent warranty deed, the Bureau “conducted
a Right of Way agreement without the Manypenny family[’s] input.” Id. Dickerson seeks
damages and injunctive relief. See id.
ANALYSIS
The Bureau’s sovereign immunity argument is conclusive, so I will not consider its other
reasons for dismissal.
The Quiet Title Act of 1972, 28 U.S.C. § 2409a, is “the exclusive means by which
adverse claimants [can] challenge the United States’ title to real property.” Block v. N. Dakota
ex rel. Bd. of Univ. & Sch. Lands, 461 U.S. 273, 286 (1983). In adopting the Act, “Congress
waived the United States’ sovereign immunity to suits challenging the United States’ title to
land.” Shawnee Trail Conservancy v. U.S. Dep’t of Agric., 222 F.3d 383, 388 (7th Cir. 2000). But
this waiver of sovereign immunity is limited, including by “the preservation of immunity in
Case: 3:25-cv-00704-jdp Document #: 21 Filed: 11/25/25 Page 2 of 4

3
cases where the United States claims an interest in land as trust or restricted Indian land.”
Id. (citing 28 U.S.C. § 2409a(a)). “[W]hen the United States claims an interest in real property
based on that property’s status as trust or restricted Indian lands, the . . . Act does not waive
the Government’s immunity.” United States v. Mottaz, 476 U.S. 834, 843 (1986).
Dickerson alleges that Brunette filed a fraudulent warranty deed to federal Indian lands
and that the Bureau granted him a right of way to those lands. The warranty deed says that
the land was purchased by the United States in trust for Brunette. Dickerson’s allegations and
incorporated warranty deed show that the government claims an interest in the lands as trust
or restricted Indian lands. Dickerson’s claims, which center on a transaction that occurred in
1980, are barred by sovereign immunity. Dickerson does not directly address the Bureau’s
jurisdictional argument in his response, and he appears to concede that the government claims
an interest in the property. See Dkt. 9 at 3–4 (stating that the Bureau “started omitting lands
from the Manypenny-Dickerson inventory without permission” and that the government has
“stolen” the property). 1 I will grant the Bureau’s motion and dismiss Dickerson’s claims against
the Bureau.
That leaves Dickerson’s claims against Brunette. A party cannot maintain a federal
lawsuit against a dead person. LN Mgmt., LLC v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., 957 F.3d 943,
955 (9th Cir. 2020). Substitution of a proper party for a dead person is allowed in some cases
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25(a)(1). Macklin v. Serrano, No. 19-cv-583, 2020 WL
6323079, at *2 (E.D. Wis. Oct. 28, 2020). But substitution is not allowed where, as here, the
1 Dickerson filed an identical response after the Bureau replied. See Dkt. 20.
Case: 3:25-cv-00704-jdp Document #: 21 Filed: 11/25/25 Page 3 of 4

4
person died before the lawsuit was brought. Id. Public records show that Brunette died in 2002.
I will not allow Dickerson to proceed against Brunette.
When a plaintiff proceeds without counsel, the court of appeals has cautioned against
dismissing his case without giving him a chance to amend the complaint. Felton v. City of
Chicago, 827 F.3d 632, 636 (7th Cir. 2016). But leave to amend doesn’t have to be granted if
it’s clear, as it is here, that further amendment would be futile. Bogie v. Rosenberg, 705 F.3d 603,
608 (7th Cir. 2013).
ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that:
1. 	The Bureau of Indian Affairs’ corrected motion to dismiss, Dkt. 7, is GRANTED,
and the complaint, Dkt. 1-1, is DISMISSED without leave to amend.
2. 	The Bureau’s original motion to dismiss, Dkt. 2, is DENIED as moot.
3. 	The clerk of court is directed to enter judgment and close the case.
Entered November 24, 2025.
BY THE COURT:
/s/
________________________________________
JAMES D. PETERSON
District Judge
Case: 3:25-cv-00704-jdp Document #: 21 Filed: 11/25/25 Page 4 of 4