Court Opinion

ID: 9409870
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-19 19:01:17.200025+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:54.077655
License: Public Domain

FILED
                           NOT FOR PUBLICATION
                                                                                 JUL 19 2023
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                         MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                            U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

                            FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

STEPHEN P. VILLASENOR,                           No.   22-55637

              Plaintiff-Appellant,               D.C. No.
                                                 5:21-cv-01835-JGB-SHK
 v.

TORRES-MARTINEZ DESERT                           MEMORANDUM*
CAHUILLA INDIANS,

              Defendant-Appellee.

                    Appeal from the United States District Court
                        for the Central District of California
                     Jesus G. Bernal, District Judge, Presiding

                             Submitted July 17, 2023**
                             San Francisco, California

Before: HAWKINS, S.R. THOMAS, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.

      Stephen P. Villasenor, a non-Indian, appeals pro se the district court’s Fed.

R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) dismissal of his action against the Torres Martinez Desert

Cahuilla Indians (“Tribe”), a federally recognized Indian tribe. Villasenor alleged

      *
             This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
      **
             The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
violations of the Fourteenth Amendment and the Indian Civil Rights Act of 1968

(“ICRA”) in the Tribe’s termination of his employment. We have jurisdiction

under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo whether a Native American tribe

possesses sovereign immunity, Deschutes River All. v. Portland Gen. Elec. Co., 1

F.4th 1153, 1158 (9th Cir. 2021), and dismissals based on sovereign immunity,

Crowe v. Or. State Bar, 989 F.3d 714, 724 (9th Cir. 2021) (per curiam). We

affirm. Because the parties are familiar with the factual and procedural history of

the case, we need not recount it here.

      “[A]n Indian tribe is subject to suit only where Congress has authorized the

suit or the tribe has waived its immunity.” Kiowa Tribe of Okla. v. Mfg. Techs.,

Inc., 523 U.S. 751, 754 (1998). The Fourteenth Amendment does not constrain the

actions of Indian tribes, and Congress did not abrogate tribal sovereign immunity

for non-habeas suits under the ICRA. Santa Clara Pueblo v. Martinez, 436 U.S.

49, 56, 59 (1978); see also Johnson v. Gila River Indian Cmty., 174 F.3d 1032,

1035 (9th Cir. 1999) (“The only recognized exception to a sovereign immunity

defense under the ICRA is a habeas corpus action.”). The Tribe has not waived

sovereign immunity here. Therefore, sovereign immunity bars Villasenor’s non-

habeas suit.

      AFFIRMED.

                                          2