Tang
Tang v. Northern Cheyenne Tribe
Opinion
Lead Opinion
MEMORANDUM **
Eddie Tang appeals pro se the district court’s judgment dismissing, without leave to amend, his action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985 alleging that the Northern Cheyenne Tribal Court (“Tribal Court”) violated his civil rights by exercising jurisdiction over him, that the Montana Child Support Enforcement Division violated his civil rights by registering and enforcing the orders of the Tribal Court, and that his alleged ex-common-law wife and her lawyer violated his civil rights by *439 seeking remedies against him in the Tribal Court. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (e) dismissals, Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998), and we affirm.
The federal courts lack jurisdiction to consider Tang’s claims against the Northern Cheyenne Tribe because Tang has not yet exhausted his remedies by appealing tribal jurisdiction to the tribal appeals court. See Allstate Indem. Co. v. Stump, 191 F.3d 1071 , 1073 (9th Cir.), amended by 197 F.3d 1031 (9th Cir.1999).
Tang failed to state a claim against the Montana Child Support Enforcement Division because the state agency is not a “person” who can be…