Glenn Eagleman v. Rocky Boys Chippewa-Cree , 699 F. App'x 599 ( 2017 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 21 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
GLENN EAGLEMAN; et al., No. 15-36003
Plaintiffs-Appellants, D.C. No. 4:14-cv-00073-BMM
v.
MEMORANDUM*
ROCKY BOYS CHIPPEWA-CREE
TRIBAL BUSINESS COMMITTEE OR
COUNCIL, Richard Morsette, Chairman; et
al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Montana
Brian M. Morris, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted June 6, 2017
Seattle, Washington
Before: FERNANDEZ, CALLAHAN, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
Appellants Glenn Eagleman, Celesia Eagleman, and Theresa Small
(collectively, the “Eaglemans”) appeal the district court’s order dismissing their
claims for declaratory and injunctive relief against Appellees Rocky Boys
Chippewa-Cree Tribal Business Committee or Council, et al. We have jurisdiction
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
to determine our own jurisdiction, United States v. Ruiz, 536 U.S. 622, 628 (2002),
we review the district court’s order dismissing a case under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(b) de novo, Allen v. Gold Country Casino, 464 F.3d 1044, 1046 (9th
Cir. 2006), and we affirm.
I.
The Eaglemans seek a declaratory judgment that the tribal court of the
Chippewa Cree Tribe (the “Tribe”) erred in dismissing its common law claims
against a tribal housing authority and two of its employees on the ground of tribal
sovereign immunity. Because this Court, like the district court, is a court of
limited jurisdiction, see Owen Equip. & Erection Co. v. Kroger, 437 U.S. 365, 374
(1978), we may only consider the Eaglemans’ claims if their complaint pleads
allegations that support federal subject matter jurisdiction, see Okla. Tax Comm’n
v. Graham, 489 U.S. 838, 840–41 (1989).
The Eaglemans invoke federal jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, asserting
that tribal sovereign immunity is a “federal question.”1 To be sure, tribal sovereign
immunity is a matter of federal law, Bodi v. Shingle Springs Band of Miwok
Indians, 832 F.3d 1011, 1022–23 (9th Cir. 2016), and questions of the scope of
tribal sovereignty are, in certain circumstances, reviewable in federal court, see
1
The district court assumed jurisdiction, but held that sovereign immunity
precluded the Eaglemans’ suit.
2
Nat’l Farmers Union Ins. Cos. v. Crow Tribe of Indians, 471 U.S. 845, 852 (1985).
For example, a tribal court’s assertion of jurisdiction over a non-tribal-member is a
question that is answered “by reference to federal law and is a ‘federal question’
under § 1331.” Id. But here, Appellees are not non-tribal-members; they are part
of the Chippewa-Cree Tribe. Nor is there any suggestion that the tribal court
lacked jurisdiction over the Eaglemans’ claims. To the contrary, the Eaglemans
both sought and submitted to the tribal court’s jurisdiction.
The Eaglemans insist that asserting tribal sovereign immunity suffices to
invoke federal question jurisdiction. But tribal immunity arises as a defense to
suit, meaning it “does not provide an independent basis for federal jurisdiction.”
Bodi, 832 F.3d at 1023 n.16 (citing Graham, 489 U.S. at 841); see also Morongo
Band of Mission Indians v. Cal. State Bd. of Equalization, 858 F.2d 1376, 1386
(9th Cir. 1988) (noting that tribal sovereign immunity arose there “only by way of
defense”). Under the well-pleaded complaint rule, a claim must actually arise
under federal law to trigger jurisdiction under § 1331. See Graham, 489 U.S. at840–41. A litigant may not plead his way into federal court by asserting an
opposing party’s federal defense. See id.Here, tribal sovereign immunity arose as a defense in tribal court, and the
allegation that the tribal court erred in applying the defense is not a question
“arising under” federal law for purposes of § 1331. Cf. id. The Eaglemans’ lone
3
affirmative claim—that the tribal appellate court erroneously “put them out of
court”—is not a question of federal law, and so cannot supply the requisite federal
hook for purposes of § 1331.
The Eaglemans essentially ask the district court to sit as a general appellate
body to review the decision of the tribal court. This miscomprehends the
relationship between the federal government and Indian tribes. Tribal courts are
not vertically aligned under the federal judicial hierarchy. They are institutions
within coordinate sovereign entities vested with the power to regulate internal
tribal affairs. See Iowa Mut. Ins. Co. v. LaPlante, 480 U.S. 9, 14–15 (1987).
Asserting jurisdiction here would effectively expand this court’s authority to
superintend matters of tribal self-governance. And because we lack general
appellate power over the tribal court, we would be unable to afford effective relief
to the Eaglemans even if we determined that the tribal court erred.
II.
Although the district court exceeded its authority in considering the
Eaglemans’ declaratory judgment action because it lacked jurisdiction to do so, it
arrived at the correct result in dismissing the Eaglemans’ suit. The judgment of the
district court is therefore
AFFIRMED.
4