Automated Summary
Key Facts
Plaintiffs Monique and Veszono George, children of Basil George, filed a federal civil rights lawsuit against Defendants Merly Moz and Mariah Fraide following Moz's purchase of their family home in Wapato, Washington in May 2021. Moz and her daughter Fraide were removed from the property in February 2023 after a Yakama Nation Tribal Court order, and Moz subsequently won state court proceedings awarding her the property and $58,438.43 in damages in October 2024. Plaintiffs' October 2024 federal complaint alleging violations of Indian law and civil rights was dismissed with summary judgment granted to Defendants on August 25, 2025, because their complaint failed to state sufficient facts to support a viable claim for relief.
Issues
- The court construes the Complaint liberally as an attempt to assert a 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3) claim for conspiracy to deprive Plaintiffs of their civil rights. A § 1985(3) claim requires allegations of conspiracy, purpose of depriving equal protection, act in furtherance, and injury. The second element requires evidence that the deprivation was motivated by racial animus, which the Plaintiffs fail to allege.
- The court must determine whether the Plaintiffs' Complaint adequately states a claim for relief under the statutes they assert, including 18 U.S.C. §§ 241, 242, 245, 361, and Title 25 U.S.C. The court analyzes whether these statutes provide a private cause of action in a civil suit and whether the Complaint contains sufficient factual matter to state a plausible claim for relief.
Holdings
The Court grants summary judgment in favor of Defendants because Plaintiffs' Complaint fails to state sufficient facts to support a claim for relief. While construing the Complaint liberally, Plaintiffs do not allege that Defendants' actions were motivated by racial animus against them as Indians, nor do they explain what was false or illegal in Defendants' state court filings. Additionally, Plaintiffs' failure to respond to the motion for summary judgment means there is no evidence in the record to support their allegations.
Remedies
The court grants the Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment, enters judgment in favor of Defendants, and closes the file.
Legal Principles
The court applied the summary judgment standard under FRCP 56(a), requiring the moving party to show no genuine dispute as to any material fact and entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. The court views evidence in the light most favorable to the adverse party. For unopposed motions, summary judgment may be granted if the movant's papers are sufficient and do not reveal a genuine issue of material fact. The complaint must contain sufficient factual matter to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face. Pro se pleadings are construed liberally, but essential elements of the claim must be initially pled.
Precedent Name
- Sever v. Alaska Pulp Corp.
- James River Ins. Co. v. Hebert Schenk, P.C.
- United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America v. Scott
- Johnson v. City of Shelby, Miss.
- Ivey v. Bd. of Regents
- Carmen v. San Francisco Unified School District
- Olga C. v. County of Santa Clara
- North American Specialty Insurance Company v. Royal Surplus Lines Insurance Company
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly
- Draper v. Rosario
- Cristobal v. Siegel
- Jones v. Halekulani Hotel, Inc.
Cited Statute
- 18 U.S.C. §§ 241, 242, 245
- Title 25 U.S.C.
- 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3)
Judge Name
Judge Rebecca L. Pennell
Passage Text
- Summary judgment will be granted if the moving party 'shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.' FRCP 56(a). Defendants' motion for summary judgment is unopposed.
- Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 17 is GRANTED. The Clerk of this court shall enter this Order and judgment in favor of Defendants, forward copies to the parties, and close this file.
- The second element generally requires evidence that the deprivation of the plaintiff's rights was motivated by racial animus. Despite many complaints about the state court's failure to abide by tribal law, Plaintiffs do not allege Defendants' actions were motivated by any racial animus against them as Indians. Nor do they explain what was 'falsified, inaccurate, or illegal' in Defendants' filings before the state court.