Case ID: f-appx_692/html/0894-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

James Raymond ACRES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BLUE LAKE RANCHERIA; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 17-15502
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted June 26, 2017 
    
    Filed June 30, 2017
    James Raymond Acres, Pro Se
    Megan Yarnall, Janssen Malloy LLP, Eureka, CA, for Defendant-Appellee Blue Lake Ranchería
    Lester John Marston, Rapport and Mar-ston, Ukiah, CA, for Defendant-Appellee Tribal Court
    Lester John Marston, Pro Se
    Before: PAEZ, BEA, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

James Raymond Acres appeals pro se from the district court’s order dismissing his action for failure to exhaust tribal court remedies. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Slep-Tone Entm’t Corp. v. Wired for Sound Karaoke & DJ Servs., LLC, 845 F.3d 1246, 1248 (9th Cir. 2017) (motion to dismiss); Boozer v. Wilder, 381 F.3d 931, 934 (9th Cir. 2004) (exhaustion of tribal court remedies). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Acres’s action because Acres did not exhaust tribal court remedies and failed to demonstrate that exhaustion was excused. See Grand Canyon Skywalk Dev., LLC v. ‘Sa’ Nyu Wa Inc., 715 F.3d 1196, 1200-01 (9th Cir. 2013) (a federal court may not make a ruling on tribal court jurisdiction until tribal court remedies are exhausted and “a tribal court ... must have acted in bad faith for exhaustion to be excused”).

We do not consider arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal or in the reply brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

Acres’s motion to take judicial notice (Docket Entry No. 21) is denied.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.