Case ID: f-appx_473/html/0726-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

James Parker SHIELD; et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. John SINCLAIR; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 10-35650.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted May 15, 2012.
    
    Filed May 25, 2012.
    William Otis Bronson, William O. Bronson, PLLC, Great Falls, MT, for Plaintiffs-Appellants.
    N. Jean Bearcrane, N. Jean Bearcrane, Attorney at Law, Robert E. LaFountain, Esquire, Attorney at Law, Billings, MT, for Defendants-Appellees.
    Before: CANBY, GRABER, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Plaintiffs, five members of the Little Shell Tribe of Chippewa Indians, a non-federally recognized Indian tribe, appeal from the district court’s judgment dismissing their action alleging that defendants violated their rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3) and 25 U.S.C. § 1302. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Nuclear Info. & Res. Serv. v. U.S. Dep’t of Transp. Research & Special Programs Admin., 457 F.3d 956, 958 (9th Cir.2006), and we may affirm on any ground supported by the record, Thompson v. Paul, 547 F.3d 1055, 1058-59 (9th Cir.2008). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed the claims plaintiffs brought under section 1985(3) because the first amended complaint failed to allege facts sufficient to show that they are a protected class. See Schultz v. Sundberg, 759 F.2d 714, 718 (9th Cir.1985) (per curiam) (to bring a claim under section 1985(3), plaintiffs must show that “the courts have designated the class in question a suspect or quasi-suspect classification requiring more exacting scrutiny or that Congress has indicated through legislation that the class required special protection”).

The district court properly dismissed the claims plaintiffs brought under the Indian Civil Rights Act because “the only remedy available from the federal courts under [the Act] is a writ of habeas corpus under 25 U.S.C. § 1303.” Hein v. Capitan Grande Band of Diegueno Mission Indians, 201 F.3d 1256,1259-60 (9th Cir.2000).

Plaintiffs’ remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.