22:I[98912,["/_next/static/chunks/0asocxi83kb~5.js","/_next/static/chunks/0n4z.7yu76je-.js","/_next/static/chunks/0eyt_ou8dj52g.js","/_next/static/chunks/01bcia3bjqt9z.js","/_next/static/chunks/15egrlmmf_yst.js"],"CaseDetailGate"] 23:T4ba,MEMORANDUM James Nasella, Jr., appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his action alleging breach of a Tribal Compact and a wrongful death claim. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo questions of subject matter jurisdiction and tribal sovereign immunity, Linneen v. Gila River Indian Cmty., 276 F.3d 489 , 492 (9th Cir.2002), and we affirm. The district court properly dismissed Nasella’s action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because defendant was entitled to tribal sovereign immunity. See C & L Enters., Inc. v. Citizen Band Potawatomi Indian Tribe, 532 U.S. 411, 418 , 121 S.Ct. 1589 , 149 L.Ed.2d 623 (2001) (“[T]o relinquish its immunity, a tribe’s waiver must be clear.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)); Allen v. Gold Country Casino, 464 F.3d 1044, 1047 (9th Cir.2006) (tribal sovereign immunity bars an action brought against a tribal owned and operated casino). We reject Nasella’s contention that he has standing to bring claims under a tribal compact between California and the tribe. AFFIRMED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.24:T4ec,

MEMORANDUM

James Nasella, Jr., appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his action alleging breach of a Tribal Compact and a wrongful death claim. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo questions of subject matter jurisdiction and tribal sovereign immunity, Linneen v. Gila River Indian Cmty., 276 F.3d 489 , 492 (9th Cir.2002), and we affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Nasella’s action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because defendant was entitled to tribal sovereign immunity. See C & L Enters., Inc. v. Citizen Band Potawatomi Indian Tribe, 532 U.S. 411, 418 , 121 S.Ct. 1589 , 149 L.Ed.2d 623 (2001) (“[T]o relinquish its immunity, a tribe’s waiver must be clear.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)); Allen v. Gold Country Casino, 464 F.3d 1044, 1047 (9th Cir.2006) (tribal sovereign immunity bars an action brought against a tribal owned and operated casino).

We reject Nasella’s contention that he has standing to bring claims under a tribal compact between California and the tribe.

AFFIRMED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.