1The Honorable Rodney S. Webb, Chief Judge, United States District Court for

the District of North Dakota.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

_____________

No. 99-4142ND

_____________

Douglas F. Longie, Honorable, *

*

Appellant, *

*

v. * On Appeal from the United

* States District Court

Myra Pearson, Chairwoman; Carl * for the District of

Walking Eagle, Councilperson; * North Dakota.

Vincent Greyhorn, Councilperson; *

Mark Luftkins, Councilperson; * [UNPUBLISHED]

Timothy Longie, Councilperson; *

Noreen Cavanaugh, *

*

Appellees. *

___________

 Submitted: April 10, 2000

 Filed: April 21, 2000

___________

Before RICHARD S. ARNOLD, BOWMAN, and BEAM, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Douglas F. Longie appeals the District Court’s1 order dismissing his action

against certain Spirit Lake Sioux Tribe (Tribe) Council members. We affirm.
-2-

Longie, an enrolled member of the Tribe, is the former Chief Judge of the Spirit

Lake Sioux Tribal Court. He filed this pro se “Petition for an Order of Writ of Habeas

Corpus” complaining that, pursuant to a Council resolution, he was illegally removed

from his position as Chief Judge in violation of tribal law, the Tribe’s constitution, and

federal law. After defendants moved to dismiss, the District Court granted their

motion.

We conclude that dismissal was appropriate. As we noted in Duncan Energy v.

Three Affiliated Tribes, 27 F.3d 1294, 1299 (8th Cir. 1994), cert. denied, 513 U.S.

1103 (1995), the Supreme Court recognizes the federal government’s long-standing

policy of encouraging tribal self-government. See, e.g., Iowa Mut. Ins. Co. v. LaPlante,

480 U.S. 9, 14-15 (1987) (tribal courts play vital role in tribal self-government and

federal government has consistently encouraged their development); Merrion v. Jicarilla

Apache Tribe, 455 U.S. 130, 138 n.5 (1982) (through laws governing Indian tribes,

Congress has expressed purpose of “fostering tribal self-government”). Accordingly,

civil jurisdiction over tribal-related activities presumptively lies in tribal courts unless

a specific treaty provision or federal statute affirmatively limits the jurisdiction, see

Iowa Mut., 480 U.S. at 18; and principles of comity require the parties to exhaust tribal

court remedies before a federal court considers relief in a civil case regarding

tribal-related activities on reservation land, see id. at 15; see also National Farmers

Union v. Crow Tribe of Indians, 471 U.S. 845, 856-57 (1985) (district court should not

assert jurisdiction over case arising out of acts occurring on reservation until tribal court

was first given opportunity to determine its jurisdiction to hear case).

Here the parties are all Tribe members. Longie’s petition centers on an

intra-tribal dispute involving the interpretation of tribal resolutions, the tribal

constitution, and tribal law. Longie must exhaust his tribal court remedies before

bringing suit in federal court. See Bruce H. Lien Co. v. Three Affiliated Tribes, 93

F.3d 1412, 1420 (8th Cir. 1996) (exhaustion of tribal court remedies required where

many parties are tribal entities or members, and dispute arises from tribal government
-3-

activity involving project located within reservation borders); Runs After v. United

States, 766 F.2d 347, 352 (8th Cir. 1985) (dispute as to interpretation of tribal

resolutions, tribal constitution, tribal bylaws, and tribal election ordinance raises

questions of tribal law that should first be presented to tribal court); DeMent v. Oglala

Sioux Tribal Court, 874 F.2d 510, 512, 517 (8th Cir. 1989) (before seeking habeas

relief in federal court, father seeking custody of children residing on reservation should

have exhausted tribal remedies by appealing tribal court’s refusal to enforce custody

decree).

Accordingly, we affirm.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.