CROSS v. DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR (2020)

MEMORANDUM **

Raymond Cross appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing for lack of subject matter jurisdiction his action challenging a determination by the Bureau of Indian Affairs Superintendent regarding the number of tribal signatories needed to initiate a secretarial election. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Hajro v. U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Servs., 811 F.3d 1086, 1098 (9th Cir. 2016). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Cross's action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under the Administrative Procedure Act because the Bureau's calculation of signatures is not a final agency decision. See Bennett v. Spear, 520 U.S. 154, 178, 117 S.Ct. 1154, 137 L.Ed.2d 281 (1997) (for an agency action to be final, it “must mark the consummation of the agency's decisionmaking process” and must be “one by which rights or obligations have been determined, or from which legal consequences will flow” (internal quotation marks omitted)); Rattlesnake Coal. v. EPA, 509 F.3d 1095, 1104 (9th Cir. 2007) (federal courts lack subject matter jurisdiction to hear claim if plaintiff does not identify final agency action).

Cross's motions for oral argument (Docket Entry Nos. 19 and 21) are denied. Cross's motion for supplementation of the judicial record (Docket Entry No. 23) is granted.

AFFIRMED.