T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3. T he panel un ani m ou sl y f i nd s thi s c as e s ui t abl e f

or deci si on w i tho utoral ** ar gu m ent . S ee F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). T he H onor abl e K e vi n T hom a s D uf f y , U ni t e d S t a t e s D i s tr i c tJudge f orthe *** S outhe rn D i s tr i c tof

N e w Y ork, s i tt i ng byde s i gna t i on. NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E N IN T H C IR C U IT DA VI D A ND E R S ON , P e titio n e r- A p p e llan t, v. A L H E N T O N ; e t. a l., R esp o n d en t s - A p p el l ees. N o. 07- 16921 ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt

f orthe D i s tr i c tof

A r i z ona D a vi d G . C a m pbe l l , D i s tr i c tJudge , P r e s i di ng S ubm i tt e d O c t obe r5, 2010 ** S a n F r a n c is c o , C a lif

o rn ia B e f o r e : F E RNA ND E Z a n dS I L VE R MAN, C i r c u i tJu d g e s , a n dDU F F Y, D i stri ct *** Judg e. A p p e llan t D a v idA n d e r s o n ap p e a ls f r o m th e d is tr ic t c o u rt’s d is m is s a l o f h is 

# FI LED OC T 12 2010 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS2

P e titio n f o rW r it o f

H ab e a s C o rp u s f

o rf a ilu r e to a s s e rt af

e d e r a l r ig h t c o g n iz ab le unde r25 U . S . C . § 1303 of the I ndi a n C i vi l R i ght s A c t . W e r e vi e w de novo the di s tr i c tc ourt ’ s de c i s i on t o de nyape t i t i on f orhabe a s c orpus . C ooke v. S ol i s , 606 F .3 d1 2 0 6 , 1 2 1 2 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 1 0 ) ; M e a n s v . N a v a jo N a tio n , 4 3 2 F .3 d9 2 4 , 9 2 8 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) . O u rr e v ie w o f

th is c a s e b e g in s a n de n d s w ith th e f a c t th a t A n d e r s o n ’s c la im has bee n app ea l ed t o and deci ded b y the G i l a R i ver I nd i an C om m un i ty ( “ G R IC ”) C ou rtof A pp ea l s. T hu s, w e nee d n otand d o n otre sol ve the i ss ue of w hether A n d e r s o n ’ s g r o u n df

o rh ab e a s r e l i e f

w a s af e d e r a l r i g h tc o g n i z ab l e u n d e r2 5 U . S. C. § 1303. G e ne r a l l y , w e w i l l notc ons i de rf a c t s out s i de the r e c or d de ve l ope d be f or e the d is tr ic t c o u rt. S e e D a ly - M u rp h yv . W in s to n , 8 3 7 F .2 d3 4 8 , 3 5 1 ( 9 th C ir . 1 9 8 7 ) . H o w e v e r , th is c o u rt “m a yta k e n o tic e o f p r o c e e d in g s in o th e rc o u rts , b o th w ith in a nd w i thoutthe f

e de r a l j udi c i a l s y s t e m , i f thos e pr oc e e di ngs ha ve adi r e c tr e l a t i on t o m a tt e r s a ti s s ue . ” U . S . e x r e l . R obi ns on R a nc he r i aC i t i z e ns C ounc i l v. B orne o, I n c ., 9 7 1 F .2 d2 4 4 , 2 4 8 ( 9 th C ir . 1 9 9 2 ) ; B ry a n t v . C a r le s o n , 4 4 4 F .2 d3 5 3 , 3 5 7 ( 9 th C i r. 1 9 7 1 ) (co u rtt o o kj u d i ci al n o t i ce o f p ro ceed i n g s an dfi l i n g s i n o th er co u rt s, i n cl u d i n g a d eci si o n o f th e C al i fo rn i a S up rem e C o u rti ssu edw h i l e th e p art i es’ appeal i n the fe dera l ca se w as pend i ng ). H er e, the proceedi ng s bef ore the G R IC3

C o u rt o f A p p e a ls a r e “d ir e c tlyr e la te d ” to th is ap p e a l a n da r e , in f a c t, d is p o s itiv e . T he r e f or e , w e t a ke not i c e of

the c ourt ’ s f

i na l j udgm e nt , G i l aR i ve rI ndi a n C m ty . v. A nd er son, A C -200 3-00 7 (G i l a R i ver I nd i an C m ty. T ri bal C t . A pp . , Jul y 13, 20 10 ). A nd er son’ s argum entbo i l s dow n t o a cl ai m thatthe tri alj ud ge w as im p r o p e r lyin th e o f

f ic e . I n its Ju ly1 3 , 2 0 1 0 o r d e r , th e G R I C C o u rt o f A p p e a ls he l d a s am a tt e rof

tr i ba l l a w tha tA nde r s on’ s c onvi c t i on a nd s e nt e nc e byJudge Ja ckson-L ou i s w er e val i d p ursuantt o the de fac t o o ff i ce r doctri ne, un der w hi ch an offi ci al ’ s a ct i on s r em ai n v al i d d es pi t e quest i on s of an o ff i ce r’ s l egi t i m ac y. S ee In r e E s t a t e of

de E s c a ndon, 159 P . 3d 557, 559 ( A r i z . C t . A pp. 2007) ( e xpa ndi ng de fact o o ffi cer d o ctri n e t o j u d g es an dj u d g es p ro t em p o re). A cco rd i n g l y, b ecau se Judg e P ro T em po re Ja ckson-L ou i s had j ud i ci alautho ri ty t o p re si de ov er A n d e r s o n ’s tr ia l a n ds e n te n c e u n d e rtr ib a l law , A n d e r s o n ’s c o n s titu tio n a l r ig h ts w er e n o t v io lated . T h er ef o re , th e d istrict co u rt p ro p er ly d ism isse dA n d er so n ’s P e t i t i on f orW r i tof

H abe a s C orpus . S e e 25 U . S . C . § 1303. AF F I R ME D.