NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

CESAR CABALLERO; MIWOK NATION 

(TRIBE), 

Plaintiffs-Appellants, 

 v. 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Defendant-Appellee, 

and 

LAND SITUATED IN THE STATE OF 

CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF EL 

DORADO, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: 

A PORTION OF THE SOUTHWEST OF 

SECTION 29, TOWNSHIP 10 NORTH, 

RANGE 10 EAST, M.D.B.& M.,; et al., 

Defendants, 

 v. 

SHINGLE SPRINGS BAND OF MIWOK 

INDIANS, 

Movant-Intervenor.

No. 20-17356 

D.C. No. 

2:20-cv-00866-KJM-AC 

MEMORANDUM*

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

FILED

OCT 22 2021

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of California

Kimberly J. Mueller, Chief District Judge, Presiding

Submitted October 20, 2021**

San Francisco, California

Before: WATFORD and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges, and BAKER,***International 

Trade Judge.

This action under the Quiet Title Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2409a(a), by Cesar 

Caballero concerns land that the United States holds in trust for the Shingle Springs 

Band of Miwok Indians (the “Band”) and land that the Band owns in fee simple.

The district court dismissed the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and denied 

Caballero’s motion to amend his complaint. We affirm.

1. The Quiet Title Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2409a(a), “provide[s] the exclusive 

means by which adverse claimants [can] challenge the United States’ title to real 

property.” Block v. N.D. ex rel. Bd. of Univ. and Sch. Lands, 461 U.S. 273, 286 

(1983). The qualified waiver of sovereign immunity in the Act, however, does not 

apply to trust or restricted Indian lands. 28 U.S.C. § 2409a(a); see also Wildman v. 

United States, 827 F.2d 1306, 1309 (9th Cir. 1987). The district court therefore 

properly dismissed Caballero’s claims about the trust land for lack of subject matter 

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

*** The Honorable M. Miller Baker, Judge for the United States Court of 

International Trade, sitting by designation.
3 

jurisdiction. 

2. The Indian lands exception to the Quiet Title Act did not deny 

Caballero equal protection of the laws because of his native heritage. The Act 

prohibits claims against the United States by any plaintiff involving Indian lands. 

See 28 U.S.C. § 2409a(a). The Act does not treat Caballero differently than a nonIndian plaintiff. See Agua Caliente Tribe of Cupeno Indians of Pala Rsrv. v. 

Sweeney, 932 F.3d 1207, 1220 (9th Cir. 2019).

3. Caballero’s claim to the land held in fee simple by the Band was 

correctly dismissed as posing a non-justiciable political question, as it was premised 

on the claim that Caballero’s group, the Miwok Nation, should have been recognized 

instead of the Band as representing the Miwok people. This Court generally refuses 

to “intrude on the traditionally executive or legislative prerogative of recognizing a 

tribe’s existence.” Price v. State of Haw., 764 F.2d 623, 628 (9th Cir. 1985); see

also United States v. Holliday, 70 U.S. 407, 419 (1865) (“[I]t is the rule of this court 

to follow the action of the executive and other political departments of the 

government, whose more special duty it is to determine such affairs. If by them

those Indians are recognized as a tribe, this court must do the same.”); Kahawaiolaa 

v. Norton, 386 F.3d 1271, 1276 (9th Cir. 2004) (“[T]he action of the federal 

government in recognizing or failing to recognize a tribe has traditionally been held 

to be a political one not subject to judicial review.”). For the same reason, the district 
4 

court did not err in declining to allow Caballero to amend his complaint to limit it to 

the land held in fee simple by the Band.1

AFFIRMED.

1 The Band’s motion to take judicial notice is GRANTED.