WILLIAM JOHNSON, District Judge
THIS MATTER comes before the Court pursuant to Defendants' Supplemental Brief Regarding Case Status [Docket No. 36]. Plaintiffs' Brief on the Status of the Case [Docket No. 37], and Defendants' Motion to Dismiss [Docket No. 9].
BACKGROUND
The relevant facts of this case were stated in this Court's Memorandum Opinion and Order filed November 22, 2002 [Docket No. 22] and will not be restated. By that Memorandum Opinion and Order, the Court granted in part Defendants' Motion to Dismiss [Docket No. 9] on the grounds that Plaintiffs had not exhausted tribal remedies. The Court stayed the case until June 1, 2003 to give the Santa Ana Tribal Court an opportunity to address Plaintiff's nearly identical claims in the case filed in that court. I ordered counsel for the parties to advise this Court on or about June 1, 2003 of the status of the action pending before the Santa Ana Tribal Court. I noted that, if appropriate, I would revisit the issue of exhaustion and the other issues raised in Defendant's motion to dismiss.
On March 14, 2003, Defendants filed a Notice of Decision by Santa Ana Tribal Court Dismissing Burrell Complaint on Grounds of Sovereign Immunity [Docket No. 24]. The notice indicated that the Santa Ana Tribal Court had dismissed Plaintiffs' tribal court Complaint on February 28, 2003. Defendants attached a copy of the Santa Ana Tribal Court order as an exhibit to the notice.
On April 2, 2003, Plaintiffs filed their Motion to Exercise Jurisdiction Over This Case; for an Order that the Tribal Court's Ruling is Null and Void and for the Court to Order a Jury Trial [Docket No. 28]. By Memorandum Opinion and Order dated May 5, 2003 [Docket No. 35], I denied the motion and ordered briefing from both parties on the status of the case. I specified that each party should address, at a minimum, whether the stay in this case should be lifted or whether it should be extended pending further exhaustion, and whether plaintiff's claims should be dismissed, and, if so, whether they should be dismissed with or without prejudice. Both parties were to file briefs no later than June 23, 2003.
On June 23, 2003, Defendants filed their brief [Docket No. 36]. Plaintiffs did not filed their brief until June 25, 2003 [Docket No. 37].
DISCUSSION
As noted, this case was stayed pending exhaustion of tribal court remedies. Both parties' briefs indicate that Plaintiffs have exhausted their tribal court remedies. Thus, the stay in this case is lifted.
Plaintiff refers to this Court's actions in staying the case as a remand to the Tribal Court for a ruling. See Plaintiff's Brief on the Status of the Case [Docket No. 37] p. 6. This Court has no authority to "remand" a case to a tribal court, and the Order staying this case did not attempt to do so.
Defendants' Motion to Dismiss raised several grounds for dismissal of Plaintiffs' claims [Docket No. 9]. In the Court's Memorandum Opinion and Order staying the case, I ruled only on Defendants' argument that Plaintiffs had failed to exhaust tribal court remedies [Docket No. 22]. I notified the parties that, upon exhaustion of tribal court remedies, I would, if appropriate, revisit the other issues raised in Defendants' motion to dismiss. Thus, Defendants' Motion to Dismiss [Docket No. 9] is still pending in this action with regard to all issues raised in the motion other than the issue of exhaustion of tribal court remedies. This motion was fully briefed before this case was stayed, and no further briefing on the issues raised in this motion will be permitted.
Plaintiffs' brief on the status of the case requests action by the Court. Thus, I will construe Plaintiffs' brief as a motion. Plaintiffs' brief requests that this Court overrule Santa Clara Pueblo v. Martinez, 436 U.S. 49 (1978). I have no authority to overrule the United States Supreme Court. Thus, I will deny this request.
Plaintiffs also ask the Court for full discovery of all issues. On October 16, 2002, U.S. Magistrate Judge Don Svet ordered a stay of discovery in this case [Docket No. 21]. The reasons given at that time for granting the stay are still germane. Thus, Plaintiff's request for discovery is denied, and the Court will continue the stay of discovery in this case pending resolution of Defendants' Motion to Dismiss [Docket No. 9].
Plaintiffs finally ask this Court to rule that it has jurisdiction to monitor the due process in tribal courts. I fully addressed this issue in the Court's Memorandum Opinion and Order filed May 22, 2003 [Docket No. 35]. In that Order, I ruled that I did not have authority to readjudicate issues resolved in a tribal court based on a lack of due process in the tribal court. See Memorandum Opinion and Order p. 5 [Docket No. 35]. Additionally, I ruled that, even if I did have such authority, there was no violation of due process principles in the Santa Ana Tribal Court proceedings. See Memorandum Opinion and Order pp. 5-7 [Docket No. 35]. Plaintiffs offer nothing in the way of argument that persuades me that I should reconsider my prior ruling on this issue. Thus, Plaintiff's request will be denied.
Defendants' Supplemental Brief Regarding Case Status requests that the Court dismiss Plaintiff's claims on grounds not raised in Defendants' Motion to Dismiss [Docket No. 9]. Accordingly, I will construe Defendants' Supplemental brief as a second motion to dismiss. Because the grounds for dismissal raised in Defendants' Supplemental Brief were not raised and briefed by both parties prior to the stay, I will permit Plaintiff to respond to the issues raised in the Supplemental Brief. Plaintiff's response is due fourteen calendar days from the date of this Order.
The Court notes that Plaintiff's Brief on the Status of the Case was not timely filed in accordance with the Court's Memorandum Opinion and Order filed May 22, 2003 [Docket No. 35]. The Court here reminds Plaintiff that the Court's Orders, including deadlines, are to be taken seriously. The deadline for Plaintiffs' Response is an absolute deadline.
CONCLUSION
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the stay in this case is hereby lifted.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the stay of discovery is hereby continued pending resolution of Defendants' Motions to Dismiss [Docket No. 9].
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants' Motion to Dismiss [Docket No. 9] is pending in this case and the issues raised therein may be revisited by the Court.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's Brief Regarding Case Status [Docket No. 37] is construed as a Motion. That motion is hereby DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants' Supplemental Brief Regarding Case Status [Docket No. 36] is construed as a second Motion to Dismiss.
IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that Plaintiff's may file a Response to Defendants' Supplemental Brief Regarding Case Status [Docket No. 36] within fourteen calendar days of the filing of this Order.