Hein

Hein v. Capitan Grande Band of Diegueno Mission Indians

Good Law
2000 Daily Journal DAR 1469·201 F.3d 1256·2000 WL 130831·2000 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 997·2000 U.S. App. LEXIS 1600
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitFebruary 7, 2000No. 98-56182California2,727 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Reinhardt, J.

Plaintiffs Hein and other members of the Splinter Group of the Capitan Grande Band of Diegueno Mission Indians (hereinafter “plaintiffs”) appeal from the district court’s decision granting defendant the Ba-rona Group’s motion to dismiss on the basis of lack of subject matter jurisdiction and tribal sovereign immunity. We agree with the district court that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ claims brought directly under the Indian Civil Rights Act (ICRA) and the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act ( IGRA), and, therefore, we affirm its dismissal of those counts. In light of this holding, we need not consider its ruling on tribal sovereign immunity to resolve the remainder of the action. We reverse the district court’s decision dismissing plaintiffs’ remaining claims on appeal; those claims are brought only against the United States and the Secretary of the Interior, and the Barona Group is not, pursuant to Rule 19, an indispensable party with respect to these causes of action. In particular, plaintiffs have asked the district court to compel the Secretary of Interior to issue a ruling with respect to their tribal status and, relatedly, their rights to a share of the…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.