Pacific Gas & Electric Co. v. Lego

Opinion

EVANS, Acting, P. J. In this appeal, Pit River Indians claim aboriginal title to certain land in Shasta County.1 The claim has been unsuccessfully litigated many times before. Defendants, who call themselves the Legitimate Pit River Indian Tribe (the Tribe), took possession of real property, setting up a trailer, clearing and excavating in some areas, and cutting down three trees. Plaintiff Pacific Gas and Electric Company (P.G.&E.), the record owner of the property, filed a complaint for ejectment, damages, and quiet title. The Tribe answered, claiming aboriginal title. The court sustained P.G.&E. ’s demurrer to this defense, on the ground that the Tribe was collaterally estopped from denying that its aboriginal title had been extinguished. However, the Tribe was allowed to deny P.G.&E.’s title (on grounds other than aboriginal rights), and [181]the suit went to trial. The court found P.G.&E. to be the sole owner of the property in fee; it quieted title against the Tribe and awarded P.G.&E. $448.75 in damages.

The substance of the Tribe’s argument on appeal is that it retains aboriginal title to the land in question: “Appellants do not contend that the federal government does not have the power to extinguish aboriginal title, but appellants do contend that since the federal government formulated and acted upon the concept of aboriginal title, passed laws limiting the methods by which aboriginal title could be extinguished, and never extinguished aboriginal title in California by any of these acceptable methods, the Legitimate Tribe’s title has not been extinguished.” In a lengthy brief the Tribe purports to distinguish—but more precisely simply challenges—the many federal precedents adverse to its position.

“ ‘Every American . . . knows that the [Indian] tribes of this continent were deprived of their ancestral ranges by force and that, even when the Indians ceded millions of acres by treaty . . . , it was ... the conquerors’ will that deprived them of their land.’ [Citation.] However, this court is precluded by law from questioning the justness of these actions. [Citation.] ‘[G]ur task here is a narrow one. . . . [W]e cannot remake history.’ [Citation.]” (In re Wilson (1981) 30 Cal.3d 21, 36 [177 Cal.Rptr. 336, 634 P.2d 363].) We must reject their claim and affirm the judgment.

I

The identical challenge has previously been resolved by the federal courts and most recently by the California Supreme Court in In re Wilson, supra, 30 Cal.3d 21. There at page 32, in dealing with the Indians’ aboriginal rights to occupancy of the land and title, the court stated, “A review of the ‘century-long course of conduct’ by which the federal government extinguished the Pit River Indian title (U.S. v. Gemmill, supra, 535 F.2d at p. 1149) leads inescapably to the conclusion that the Indians’ occupancy rights have been extinguished in their entirety. To relate the manner in which this extinguishment was carried out is to set forth a dismal chapter in the history of this nation and in the history of this state.” The court went on “The federal government’s course of conduct unquestionably establishes that extinguishment of the Pit River Indian title was absolute and unconditional.” (Id., at p. 35.)