Clay Fields v. Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAY 19 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CLAY FIELDS, No. 09-16814
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 2:09-cv-00309-SRB
v.
MEMORANDUM *
SALT RIVER PIMA-MARICOPA
INDIAN COMMUNITY,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Susan R. Bolton, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted May 10, 2010 **
San Francisco, California
Before: REINHARDT, W. FLETCHER and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
“Indian tribes have long been recognized as possessing the common-law
immunity from suit traditionally enjoyed by sovereign powers.” Santa Clara
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Pueblo v. Martinez, 436 U.S. 49, 58 (1978). In practice, this means that “suits
against [Indian tribes] under the Indian Civil Rights Act (“ICRA”) are barred
by . . . sovereign immunity from suit.” Id. at 59. Here, Fields directly sued the
Salt River Pima-Maricopa Community for a violation of the ICRA. The suit is
barred by sovereign immunity.
Congress has created jurisdiction for only one type of claim under the ICRA:
habeas corpus challenges to detention. “Congress, aware of the intrusive effect of
federal judicial review upon tribal self-government, intended to create only a
limited mechanism for [review under the ICRA], namely, that provided for
expressly in § 1303 [the provision of the ICRA providing for habeas relief].”
Santa Clara Pueblo, 436 U.S. at 70. Here, Fields did not bring a claim for habeas
relief under § 1303 of the ICRA. Thus, Fields’s claim is not authorized under the
ICRA, and federal courts do not have jurisdiction to review it. We are not
persuaded by Fields’s arguments regarding Dry Creek Lodge, Inc. v. Arapahoe and
Shoshone Tribes, 623 F.2d 682 (10th Cir. 1980). Dry Creek is inconsistent with
Supreme Court and Ninth Circuit precedent.
AFFIRMED.
2