CASE 0:17-cv-04863-MJD-LIB Document 1 Filed 10/26/17 Page 1 of 11

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA

County of Mille Lacs,
Plaintiff,
vs.

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY
JUDGMENT AND INJUNCTIVE
RELIEF

United States Department of Justice,
and United States Department of
Interior,
Defendants.

Comes now the Plaintiff, and for its cause of action against the Defendants, states and
alleges as follows:
1. This is an action under the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”), 5 U.S.C. § 552, as
amended, challenging the failure of the United States Department of Justice (“DOJ”)
to fulfill the request of the County of Mille Lacs (“County”) for records related to
Tribal Law Enforcement activities, authority granted under 25 U.S.C. § 2801 et seq.
or other authority, the assumption of concurrent federal criminal jurisdiction, and
communications regarding the same with the Mille Lacs Band of Ojibwe.
2. This is an action under the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”), 5 U.S.C. § 552, as
amended, challenging the failure of the United States Department of Interior (“DOI”),
Bureau of Indian Affairs (“BIA”) to fulfill the request of the County of Mille Lacs
(“County”) for records related to Tribal Law Enforcement activities, authority granted
under, 25 U.S.C. § 2801 et seq. or other authority, the assumption of concurrent
1

 CASE 0:17-cv-04863-MJD-LIB Document 1 Filed 10/26/17 Page 2 of 11

federal criminal jurisdiction, and communications regarding the same with the Mille
Lacs Band of Ojibwe.
3. This case seeks declaratory relief that the DOJ and the DOI are in violation of the
FOIA for failing to fulfill the County’s request for records, and injunctive relief that
the DOJ and DOI immediately and fully comply with the County’s request under the
FOIA.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
4. This Court has both subject matter jurisdiction over this action and personal
jurisdiction over the parties pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(B). This Court also has
jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Venue lies in this District
under 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(B), as Plaintiff is situated in the District of Minnesota.
5. Plaintiff Mille Lacs County is a local unit of government in Minnesota. The County
was and is engaged in negotiations with the Mille Lacs Band of Ojibwe (“Band”) over
a new Cooperative Law Enforcement Agreement, pursuant to state law. The
Cooperative Law Enforcement Agreement requires a clear and accurate mutual
understanding of relevant County and tribal land boundaries, as asserted by the Band
and the Defendants. The Cooperative Agreement also requires a clear understanding
of the granting of federal concurrent jurisdiction, the federal law enforcement powers
granted to the Band, and the geographical area where those powers will be exercised.
6. The County has requested the documents under the FOIA in order to effectively
negotiate the Cooperative Law Enforcement Agreement, and in order to allocate its
law enforcement resources.
2

 CASE 0:17-cv-04863-MJD-LIB Document 1 Filed 10/26/17 Page 3 of 11

7. The County is harmed by the DOJ’s and DOI’s failure to comply with the FOIA
requests because that failure harms the County’s ability to determine with certainty
the boundaries of Indian Country as asserted by the DOJ and DOI for purposes of
TLOA and the Band’s federal law enforcement activities, as well as hindered in its
ability to negotiate an effective cooperative law enforcement agreement with the
Mille Lacs Band of Ojibwe.
8. Defendant DOJ is an agency within the meaning of 5 U.S.C. § 552(f). The DOJ has
possession and control over the requested records and is responsible for fulfilling
Plaintiff’s FOIA request.
9. Defendant DOI is an agency within the meaning of 5 U.S.C. § 552(f). The DOI has
possession and control over the requested records and is responsible for fulfilling
Plaintiff’s FOIA request.
STATUTORY FRAMEWORK
The Freedom of Information Act
10. The FOIA, 5 U.S.C. § 552, requires federal agencies to release requested records to
the public unless one or more specific statutory exemptions apply.
11. A federal agency must respond to a party making a FOIA request within twenty (20)
working days, notifying that party of at least the agency’s determination whether or
not to fulfill the request and of the requester’s right to appeal the agency’s
determination to the agency head. 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(A)(i).

3

 CASE 0:17-cv-04863-MJD-LIB Document 1 Filed 10/26/17 Page 4 of 11

12. In “unusual circumstances,” an agency may delay its response to a FOIA request, but
the agency still must provide the requester with notice and “the date on which a
determination is expected to be dispatched.” 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(B).
13. This Court has jurisdiction, upon receipt of a complaint, “to enjoin the agency from
withholding agency records and to order the production of any agency records
improperly withheld from the complainant.” 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(B).
FACTS
14. On November 17, 2016, Plaintiff’s counsel sent an FOIA request to the DOJ via
email, seeking:
(1) All agreements, including drafts and proposed agreements,
between any federal agency and the Mille Lacs Band of Ojibwe
regarding concurrent federal criminal jurisdiction under the
Tribal Law Enforcement Act;
(2) All agreements, including drafts and proposed agreements, and
other documents referencing planned Mille Lacs Band of Ojibwe
Tribal Law Enforcement activities to enforce federal and/or tribal
law pursuant to 25 U.S.C.A. § 2804 or other statutory or legal
authority;
(3) Records of the dates, times and substance of all phone calls,
meetings, and conferences between the Department of Justice
and the Mille Lacs Band of Ojibwe or their attorneys or
representatives concerning:
a. Tribal Law Enforcement Act and the assumption of
concurrent federal criminal jurisdiction;
b. The Mille Lacs Reservation boundaries;
c. Activities by Mille Lacs Band Police or Law Enforcement
following the assumption of concurrent federal criminal
jurisdiction;
(4) All notes of meetings, correspondence, emails, or other electronic
communications, or other documents containing information and
the substance of the communications between the Department of
4

 CASE 0:17-cv-04863-MJD-LIB Document 1 Filed 10/26/17 Page 5 of 11

Justice and the Mille Lacs Band of Ojibwe or their
representatives or attorneys in the matters identified in 3a-c
above;
(5) Any other correspondence, memoranda, or documents provided
to the Mille Lacs Band of Ojibwe or their representatives or
attorneys, or received from the Mille Lacs Band of Ojibwe or
their representatives or attorneys, concerning the following:
a. The assumption of concurrent federal criminal
jurisdiction;
b. The Mille Lacs Reservation boundaries;
c. Actions and activities by the Mille Lacs Band of Ojibwe
Police or Law Enforcement following the assumption of
concurrent federal criminal jurisdiction;
(6) Plans or proposals for the determination of the Mille Lacs
Reservation boundaries through criminal prosecution or other
litigation following the assumption of concurrent federal criminal
jurisdiction.
15. On November 17, 2016, Plaintiff’s counsel sent an FOIA request to the DOI via
email, seeking:
(1) All agreements, including drafts and proposed agreements,
between any federal agency and the Mille Lacs Band of Ojibwe
regarding concurrent federal criminal jurisdiction under the
Tribal Law Enforcement Act.
(2) All agreements, including drafts and proposed agreements, and
other documents referencing planned Mille Lacs Band of Ojibwe
Tribal Law Enforcement activities to enforce federal and/or tribal
law pursuant to 25 U.S.C.A. § 2804 or other statutory or legal
authority.
(3) Records of the dates, times and substance of all phone calls,
meetings and conferences between the Department of Justice and
the Mille Lacs Band of Ojibwe or their attorneys or
representatives concerning:
a. Tribal Law Enforcement Act and the assumption of
concurrent federal criminal jurisdiction;
b. The Mille Lacs Reservation boundaries;
5

 CASE 0:17-cv-04863-MJD-LIB Document 1 Filed 10/26/17 Page 6 of 11

c. Activities by Mille Lacs Band Police or Law Enforcement
following the assumption of concurrent federal criminal
jurisdiction;
(4) All notes of meetings, correspondence, emails or other electronic
communications, or other documents containing information and
the substance of the communications between the Department of
Justice and the Mille Lacs Band of Ojibwe or their
representatives or attorneys in the matters identified in 3a-c
above.
(5) Any other correspondence, memoranda, or documents provided
to the Mille Lacs Band of Ojibwe or their representatives or
attorneys, or received from the Mille Lacs Band of Ojibwe or
their representatives or attorneys, concerning the following:
a. The assumption of concurrent federal criminal
jurisdiction;
b. The Mille Lacs Reservation boundaries;
c. Actions and activities by the Mille Lacs Band of Ojibwe
Police or Law Enforcement following the assumption of
concurrent federal criminal jurisdiction
(6) Plans or proposals for the determination of the Mille Lacs
Reservation boundaries through criminal prosecution or other
litigation following the assumption of concurrent federal criminal
jurisdiction.
16. The County agreed to pay all applicable fees in connection with processing its
requests. Counsel for the County also acknowledged his affiliation with a local unit of
government and indicated he was seeking to use the information on behalf of a local
unit of government.
17. The DOJ did not respond to the County’s FOIA request.
18. The DOI did not respond to the County’s FOIA request except on November 18, 2016
the DOI responded that FOIA coordinator Barry Cossey at the Office of Justice
Services would respond to the request.
6

 CASE 0:17-cv-04863-MJD-LIB Document 1 Filed 10/26/17 Page 7 of 11

19. On January 9, 2017, the County sent another email to the DOJ, following up on the
November 17, 2016 request, and indicating it had not received any response from the
DOJ. The County did not receive a response.
20. On January 14, 2017 the Mille Lacs County Attorney sent the November 17, 2016
FOIA request to Brian Archdale of the BIA requesting production of the documents.
No response was received.
21. On January 25, 2017 the Mille Lacs County Attorney sent a follow-up email to Brian
Archdale of the BIA requesting an update on the FOIA request process. No response
was received.
22. On January 26, 2017, the County sent another email to the DOJ, following up on its
November 17, 2016 request, and indicating it had not received any response from the
DOJ. The County did not receive a response.
23. On January 30, 2017 the County wrote to Barry Cossey, the FOIA coordinator who
the DOI had advised would respond, advising that it had not received any response to
its FOIA request. No response was received.
24. On April 26, 2017, the County sent a letter to the DOJ, via email, detailing its request
and its follow-up communications.
25. Also on April 26, 2017, the County sent an email to the DOI and Barry Cossey
advising that it had not received a response.
26. On April 26, 2017 Jessica Rogers on behalf of the DOI, Bureau of Indian Affairs, sent
an email to Barry Cossey with a copy to Randy Thompson requesting that he provide
a status update regarding the FOIA request. No status update was received.
7

 CASE 0:17-cv-04863-MJD-LIB Document 1 Filed 10/26/17 Page 8 of 11

27. On May 5, 2017, the DOJ sent a letter to counsel for the County in response to its
FOIA request. The letter indicates that the request had been assigned two different
processing numbers, and that the DOJ was combining both files and assigning it the
earlier of the two numbers. The letter indicates that the “Executive Office has
received an exceedingly heavy volume of Freedom of Information Act/Privacy Act
requests” and indicates that it is unable to respond to the request within the time limits
established by the Freedom of Information Act.
28. The DOJ’s response does not explain whether or not it will be producing documents
pursuant to the County’s request.
29. The DOJ’s response does not explain the date by which the County can anticipate a
response to its request.
30. As of the date of this filing, the County has still not received a response from the DOJ
on its request.
31. No response has been received from the DOI on the County’s FOIA request to the
DOI.
32. The DOI and DOJ have improperly withheld the records requested under the FOIA
requests by the County.
33. The County has now exhausted administrative remedies.

8

 CASE 0:17-cv-04863-MJD-LIB Document 1 Filed 10/26/17 Page 9 of 11

PLAINTIFF’S CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
CLAIM ONE - DOJ
(Failure to Produce Records Under the FOIA)
34. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference all preceding paragraphs.
35. Plaintiff, through its November 17, 2016 FOIA request, properly asked for records
within the DOJ’s control.
36. Defendant DOJ has neither produced any records to Plaintiff in response to its FOIA
request, nor made any explicit and justified claims of statutory exemption.
37. Plaintiff has exhausted the applicable administrative remedies with respect to
Defendant DOJ’s wrongful withholding of the records requested in Plaintiff’s
November 17, 2016 FOIA request.
38. The DOJ violated FOIA’s mandate to release agency records to the public, by failing
to release the records Plaintiff specifically requested. 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(3)(A),
552(a)(4)(B).
39. Accordingly, Plaintiff is entitled to injunctive and declaratory relief with respect to
the release and disclosure of the records requested in Plaintiff’s November 17, 2016
FOIA request.
CLAIM TWO - DOI
(Failure to Produce Records Under the FOIA)
40. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference all preceding paragraphs.
41. Plaintiff, through its November 17, 2016 FOIA request, properly asked for records
within the DOI’s control.

9

 CASE 0:17-cv-04863-MJD-LIB Document 1 Filed 10/26/17 Page 10 of 11

42. Defendant DOI has neither produced any records to Plaintiff in response to its FOIA
request, nor made any explicit and justified claims of statutory exemption.
43. Plaintiff has exhausted the applicable administrative remedies with respect to
Defendant DOI’s wrongful withholding of the records requested in Plaintiff’s
November 17, 2016 FOIA request.
44. The DOI violated FOIA’s mandate to release agency records to the public, by failing
to release the records Plaintiff specifically requested. 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(3)(A),
552(a)(4)(B).
45. Accordingly, Plaintiff is entitled to injunctive and declaratory relief with respect to
the release and disclosure of the records requested in Plaintiff’s November 17, 2016
FOIA request.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court:
(1) Declare that the DOJ and DOI violated the Freedom of Information Act by failing to
lawfully satisfy Plaintiff’s November 17, 2016 FOIA request;
(2) Order the DOJ and DOI to process and release immediately all records responsive to
Plaintiff’s November 17, 2016 FOIA request;
(3) Retain jurisdiction of this action to ensure the processing of Plaintiff’s FOIA request
and that no agency records are wrongfully withheld;
(4) Award Plaintiff its reasonable attorney’s fees and litigation costs in this action,
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(E); and
(5) Grant such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.
10

 CASE 0:17-cv-04863-MJD-LIB Document 1 Filed 10/26/17 Page 11 of 11

DATED: October 26, 2017
NOLAN, THOMPSON & LEIGHTON, PLC

By /s/ Randy V. Thompson
Randy V. Thompson, Reg. No. 122506
Attorneys for Plaintiff
5001 American Blvd. West, Suite 595
Bloomington, MN 55437
Telephone No. 952-405-7171
Email: rthompson@nmtlaw.com

11