a ial Division
FILED in
Ottis ofthe Court Clerk of
Western Region
JUN 17 2020
IN THE COURT OF INDIAN OFFEN!
FOR THE WESTERN REGION
WINNEMUCCA INDIAN COLONY Time Recorded 3: 20
WINNEMUCCA INDIAN COLONY
Petitioner,
CaseNo.: — C1V-19-WRIS
CIV-19-WRI6
C1V-19-WR17
CIV-19-WRI8
CIV-19-WRI9.
CIV-19-WR20
vs.
MYRL AYER, JAMES JAY AYER,
STORMY AYER, LINDA AYER, and
any other persons known and unknown
residing with the Ayer family,
and
KEVIN DICK and BRIAN DICK,
and all other persons residing with or on
the premises of the Dick occupation
and any other persons known or unknown.
and
ELENA LOYA, and all persons residing
at 1149 Cinnabar St.,
and
LESLIE SMART, JR. and all persons
residing with or on the premises of the
Smart occupation and all other persons
known or unknown,
and
DWIGHT BROWN, DOREEN BROWN,
LOUELLA BROWN, aka LOUELLA
GEORGE, aka LOUELLA STANTON,
ELDON BROWN, GILBERT GEORGE,
and all persons residing with or on the
premises of the Brown occupation and any
other persons, known ot unknown, residing
with the Brown family, except andexcluding ALVA BROWN. )
and )
ALL PERSONS RESIDING AT 232 )
SOUTH STREET. excepting COLEEN
MISSOURI, Lessee. )
Respondents, )
NOW on this 17th day of June, 2020, this matter comes before the Court, sua sponte,
‘upon notice and receipt of the unpublished Opinion of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in
Winnemucca Indian Colony: Thomas R. Wasson, Judy Rojo v United States of America, et al.,
Case No.: 18-17121. The Court is in receipt of 2 Memorandum Opinion issued on June 15, 2020
(ATTACHED) which poses questions of legitimacy of the actions by the current Winnemucca
Tribal Council. Being advised in the premises, this Court FINDS and ORDERS as follows
1. That the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals did rule on June 15, 2020 that the ongoing
dispute between factions of the Winnemucca Tribal Council was not properly decided in the
lower Court due to a lack of jurisdiction
2. That the Memorandum Opinion poses questions of legitimacy of the actions taken by a
Tribal Council, as well as subsequently elected Tribal Councils, that were authorized to be in
office by a District Court that has since been determined had no jurisdiction.
3. That until such time as this Court receives a final determination of the consequences of
the Ninth Circuit Opinion, this Court should, and does hereby FIND, a stay of these proceedings
is necessary and appropriate,
4, Additionally, the grant awarded by the Environmental Protection Agency, which has
been expended for clean-up, demolition and removal activities on the Colony may now be in
question.
Based upon the foregoing FINDINGS:
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that this case is
hereby STAYED until further order of the Court.IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that Winnemucca
Indian Colony Tribal Council is hereby ENJOINED, RESTRAINED and PROHIBITED from
proceeding with any further efforts to complete cleanup, demolition or destruction on the
Winnemucca Indian Colony.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the Winnemucca
Indian Colony Tribal Council is hereby RESTRAINED from harassing, interfering or otherwise
contacting or communicating with the residents on the Winnemucca Indian Colony. This Order
shall remain in effect until further order of this Court.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the review hearing
set for June 25, 2020 is hereby STRICKEN and will be set by the Court after further review of
this matter and the consequences of the Appellate Court’s Memorandum.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
MARSHA HARLAN, CHIEF MAGIS'NOT FOR PUBLICATION F | L E D
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS SUN 15 2020
MOLLY c. DWYER, CLERK
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT 'US. COURT OF APPEALS
WINNEMUCCA INDIAN COLONY; No. 1817121
THOMAS R. WASSON; JUDY ROJO,
Plaintiffs-Appellees,
v
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ex rel.
‘The Department of the Interior, BUREAU
OF INDIAN AFFAIRS;
SUPERINTENDENT OF THE WESTERN
NEVADA AGENCY OF THE BUREAU
OF INDIAN AFFAIRS, and the Employees,
Contractor and Agents of the Western
Nevada Agency of the Bureau of Indian
Affairs,
Defendants,
WILLIAM R. BILLS,
Intervenor-Defendant,
and
LINDA AYER; ALLEN AMBLER; JIM
AYER: LAURA AMBLER; CHERYL
APPERSON-HILL,
Intervenor-Defendants-
D.C. No.
3:11-¢y-00622-RCJ-CBC
MEMORANDUM*
ian Offensta
al Division
FILED In
[The Office of the Court Clerk of
‘Western Region
JUN 17 2020
‘This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3,Appellants.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
Robert Clive Jones, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted June 8, 2020
San Francisco. California
Before: SCHROEDER and BRESS. Circuit Judges, and McSHANE,” District
Judge.
This is a dispute between two groups, referred to as the Wasson faction and
the Ayer faction, over which group is the rightful tribal government of the
‘Winnemucca Indian Colony. Although the district court proceedings on review were
largely a victory for the Wasson faction, the Ayer faction argues the district court
lacked subject matter jurisdiction over this case from the start. We assume
familiarity with the facts and procedural history and discuss them only as necessary
to explain our decision. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We conclude
that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction and remand with instructions
to dismiss.
“Subject matter jurisdiction must exist as of the time the action is
commenced.” Morongo Band of Mission Indians v. Cal. State Bd. of Equalization,
‘The Honorable Michael J. McShane, United States District Judge for
the District of Oregon, sitting by designation
2858 F.2d 1376, 1380 (9th Cir. 1988). If a court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, it
must “dismiss the case, regardless of how long the litigation has been ongoing.”
Rainero v. Archon Corp., 844 F.3d 832, 841 (9th Cir. 2016).
‘The Administrative Procedure Act (APA) provides for judicial review of final
agency actions. 5 U.S.C. § 704; Bennett v. Spear, 520 U.S. 154, 177-78 (1997).
Under our cases, if there is no final agency action, the court lacks subject matter
jurisdiction, Hairbanks N. Star Borough v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng'rs, 543 F.3d
586, 591 (9th Cir. 2008) (“[Flinality is a jurisdictional requirement to obtaining
judicial review under the APA.”).
There was no final agency action here because at the time the complaint was
filed, the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BLA) had not reached a final decision on whether
it would recognize any group as the Colony’s tribal council, or whether any such
recognition was warranted. Instead, the BIA was in the middle of complying with a
remand order from the Interior Board of Indian Appeals (IBIA) to answer those very
questions. Any decision by the BIA would have been appealable to the IBIA, further
demonstrating that the Wasson faction failed to exhaust administrative remedies to
secure a final decision. 25 C.F.R. § 2.6(a). The Wasson faction’s reliance on
Goodface v. Grassrope, 708 F.2d 335 (8th Cir. 1983), is inapt because there the court
was reviewing “the BIA’s final decision which, in effect, declined to recognize either
faction.” /d. at 336-37 (emphasis added). Here, the BIA was still in the process ofmaking such a decision, and so there was no final agency action.
‘The district court erred in concluding that further exhaustion of remedies
before the BIA and IBIA would be futile. Futility is among the “exceptional
circumstances” when exhaustion of administrative remedies is not required. White
Mountain Apache Tribe v. Hodel, 840 F.2d 675, 677 (9th Cir. 1988). Exhaustion is
futile where continuing administrative proceedings “would cl early be of no avail,”
Fones4All Corp. v. FCC, 550 F.3d 811, 818 (9th Cir, 2008), where there is “certainty
of an adverse decision,” Agua Caliente Tribe of Cupeno Indians of Pala Reservation
v. Sweeney, 932 F.3d 1207, 1219 (9th Cir. 2019), or where there is “undisputed
evidence of administrative bias,” White Mountain, 840 F.2d at 677.
In this case, and at the time the Wasson faction filed its complaint, the BIA
was complying with the IBIA"s remand order and had sought briefing and evidence
in an effort to determine whether it needed to recognize an interim tribal government
and, if so, which faction it would recognize. Nothing in the record indicates that
allowing the BIA to continue with its process would have been futile, that there was
certainty of a decision adverse to the Wasson faction, or that the BLA was biased.
As a result, the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction. This means
the district court’s “various orders . . . were nullities.”. Morongo Band, 858 F.2d at
1381. We therefore remand this matter to the district court with instructions to (1)
dismiss this case for lack of jurisdiction and (2) vacate the district court’s variousorders, many of which related to the recognition of an interim tribal council and the
tribal council election process.
We have no occasion to decide whether and how the dismissal of this action
and the vacatur of the district court’s orders will affect any tribal election results,
tribal court rulings on these issues, or related BIA decisions; that is a matter for the
tribal courts or the BIA, as appropriate. See Cahto Tribe of Laytonville Rancheria
v, Dutschke, 715 F.3d 1225, 1226 (9th Cir. 2013) (“[A] tribe’s right to define its own.
membership for tribal purposes has long been recognized as central to its existence
as an independent political community.) (internal quotations omitted); see also Boe
v. Fort Belknap Indian Cmty. of Fort Belknap Reservation, 642 F.2d 276, 280 n.7
(9th Cir. 1981).
VACATED and REMANDED with instructions to DISMISS.
wo