Raymond Cross v. Usdoi ( 2020 )


Menu:
  •                            NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
    SEP 16 2020
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    RAYMOND CROSS,                                  No. 19-15929
    Plaintiff-Appellant,            D.C. No. 4:18-cv-00220-CKJ
    v.
    MEMORANDUM*
    U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR,
    Defendant-Appellee.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the District of Arizona
    Cindy K. Jorgenson, District Judge, Presiding
    Submitted September 8, 2020**
    Before:      TASHIMA, SILVERMAN, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
    Raymond Cross appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing
    for lack of subject matter jurisdiction his action challenging a determination by the
    Bureau of Indian Affairs Superintendent regarding the number of tribal signatories
    needed to initiate a secretarial election. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
    *
    This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
    except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
    **
    The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
    without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    § 1291. We review de novo. Hajro v. U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Servs., 
    811 F.3d 1086
    , 1098 (9th Cir. 2016). We affirm.
    The district court properly dismissed Cross’s action for lack of subject
    matter jurisdiction under the Administrative Procedure Act because the Bureau’s
    calculation of signatures is not a final agency decision. See Bennett v. Spear, 
    520 U.S. 154
    , 178 (1997) (for an agency action to be final, it “must mark the
    consummation of the agency’s decisionmaking process” and must be “one by
    which rights or obligations have been determined, or from which legal
    consequences will flow” (internal quotation marks omitted)); Rattlesnake Coal. v.
    EPA, 
    509 F.3d 1095
    , 1104 (9th Cir. 2007) (federal courts lack subject matter
    jurisdiction to hear claim if plaintiff does not identify final agency action).
    Cross’s motions for oral argument (Docket Entry Nos. 19 and 21) are
    denied. Cross’s motion for supplementation of the judicial record (Docket Entry
    No. 23) is granted.
    AFFIRMED.
    2                                      19-15929
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 19-15929

Filed Date: 9/16/2020

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 9/16/2020