Case Name: James NASELLA, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BARONA VALLEY RANCH RESORT AND CASINO, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-12-08
Citations: 586 F. App'x 433
Docket Number: No. 13-56108
Parties: James NASELLA, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BARONA VALLEY RANCH RESORT AND CASINO, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before: LEAVY, FISHER, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 586
Pages: 433–433

Head Matter:
James NASELLA, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BARONA VALLEY RANCH RESORT AND CASINO, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 13-56108.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Nov. 18, 2014.
Filed Dec. 8, 2014.
James Nasella, Jr., Glendale, CA, pro se.
Art Bunce, Law Offices of Art Bunce, Escondido, CA, for Defendant-Appellee.
Before: LEAVY, FISHER, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
James Nasella, Jr., appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing his action alleging breach of a Tribal Compact and a wrongful death claim. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo questions of subject matter jurisdiction and tribal sovereign immunity, Linneen v. Gila River Indian Cmty., 276 F.3d 489, 492 (9th Cir.2002), and we affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Nasella's action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because defendant was entitled to tribal sovereign immunity. See C & L Enters., Inc. v. Citizen Band Potawatomi Indian Tribe, 532 U.S. 411, 418, 121 S.Ct. 1589, 149 L.Ed.2d 623 (2001) ("[T]o relinquish its immunity, a tribe's waiver must be clear." (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)); Allen v. Gold Country Casino, 464 F.3d 1044, 1047 (9th Cir.2006) (tribal sovereign immunity bars an action brought against a tribal owned and operated casino).
We reject Nasella's contention that he has standing to bring claims under a tribal compact between California and the tribe.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.