Ninth Circuit

Ninth Circuit Decides Protect Our Communities v. LaCounte [Wind Energy and Eagle Protection]

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the opinion.

Briefs here.

Ninth Circuit Rules in Favor of Tribe in Pit River v. BLM III

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the opinion in Pit River Tribe v. Bureau of Land Management.

Briefs:

blm-opening-brief.pdf

pit-river-answer-brief.pdf

blm-reply.pdf

Pit River II materials here. Pit River I materials here.

Ninth Circuit Materials in Consumer Financial Protection Board v. CashCall

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here:

CPFB Opening Brief

CashCall Principal Brief

Amicus Brief

CPFB Reply

CashCall Reply

Pinoville Pomo Nation Petition to Ninth Circuit to Halt Discovery Pending Appeal Fails

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the unpublished opinion in In re Pinoville Pomo Nation [Pinoville Gaming Authority v. United States District Court].

Here are the briefs:

Petition for Writ of Mandamus

Motion to Stay

Answer to Petition

Opposition to Motion for Stay

Reply

The appeal docs are here.

Ninth Circuit Briefs in Yakama v. County Criminal Jurisdiction Appeal

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are the briefs in Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation v. City of Toppenish:

Opening Brief

Appellee Brief

state-amicus-brief.pdf

us-amicus-brief.pdf

reply-1.pdf

Lower court materials here.

Ninth Circuit Rejects Bivens Action against Hopi School Officials

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the unpublished opinion in Beam v. Naha.

Briefs:

Opening Brief

Response Brief

Profile of Ninth Circuit Judge Mary Murphy Schroeder

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Amazing story — “Mary Murphy Schroeder: She Broke Barriers From the Start.”

Ninth Circuit Affirms Major Crimes Act Conviction

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the opinion in United States v. Begay.

Ninth Circuit Partially Reinstates Section 1983 Claim against San Bernardino County Law Enforcement

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the opinion in Chemehuevi Indian Tribe v. McMahon.

An excerpt:

It is undisputed that the Sheriff cannot enforce regulatory traffic laws in “Indian country.” See 18 U.S.C. § 1162; 28 U.S.C. § 1360. “Indian country” includes, but is not limited to, land within the boundaries of a reservation. 18 U.S.C. § 1151. The issues for decision today are (1) whether the individual Tribe members and the Tribe can challenge the citations through a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action; and, if so, (2) whether Section 36 is Indian country. We hold that the individual plaintiffs, but not the Tribe, can challenge the citations under § 1983. And, we conclude that all the citations occurred within Indian country. We therefore vacate the district court’s judgment dismissing the complaint as to the individuals but affirm the judgment as to the Tribe.

Briefs here.

Ninth Circuit Decides Coeur d’Alene Tribe v. Hawks

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the opinion. An excerpt:

This appeal presents the question of whether the grant of federal question jurisdiction in 28 U.S.C. § 1331 encompasses an action to recognize and enforce a tribal court’s award against nonmembers of the tribe. The district court concluded that the action, filed by an Indian tribe seeking to enforce a tribal court judgment against nonmembers, did not present a federal question and dismissed it based on a lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Inherent in the recognition of a tribal court’s judgment against a nonmember is a question regarding the extent of the powers reserved to the tribe under federal law. As in previous decisions involving the application of tribal law to nonmembers, we hold that actions seeking to enforce a tribal judgment against nonmembers raise a substantial question of federal law. We accordingly reverse the district court’s order dismissing the case for lack of subject of matter jurisdiction.

Briefs and lower court materials here.