Raymond CROSS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF the INTERIOR, Defendant-Appellee.
Decided: September 16, 2020
Before: TASHIMA, SILVERMAN, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
Raymond Cross, Pro Se Erica McCallum, Assistant U.S. Attorney, USTU- Office of the US Attorney, Tucson, AZ, for Defendant - Appellee
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.
Was this helpful?
Response sent, thank you
Welcome to FindLaw's Cases & Codes
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.