S'Klallam, et al v. Lummi Indian Tribe, et al, No. 09-35772 (9th Cir. 2010)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED OCT 14 2010 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, No. 09-35772 D.C. Nos. 2:89-sp-00002-RSM 2:70-cv-09213-RSM and LOWER ELWHA BAND OF S KLALLAMS; JAMESTOWN BAND OF S KLALLAMS; PORT GAMBLE BAND OF S KLALLAMS; MEMORANDUM * Plaintiffs - Appellants, v. STATE OF WASHINGTON, Defendant, and LUMMI INDIAN TRIBE, Defendant - Appellee, and * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. TULALIP TRIBE, Interested party - Appellee, PUYALLUP TRIBE; MAKAH INDIAN TRIBE; SUQUAMISH INDIAN TRIBE; CONFEDERATED TRIBES & BANDS OF THE YAKAMA INDIAN NATION; MUCKLESHOOT INDIAN TRIBE; QUINAULT INDIAN NATION; QUILEUTE INDIAN TRIBE; NISQUALLY INDIAN TRIBE; SWINOMISH TRIBAL COMMUNITY; HOH INDIAN TRIBE; UPPER SKAGIT INDIAN TRIBE, Interested parties. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington Ricardo S. Martinez, District Judge, Presiding Argued and Submitted October 6, 2010 Seattle, Washington Before: KOZINSKI, Chief Judge, THOMAS and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges. Our prior decision in this dispute sets forth the appropriate standard for jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291: [A] ruling is final for purposes of § 1291 if it (1) is a full adjudication of the issues, and (2) clearly evidences the judge s intention that it be the court s final act in the matter. United States v. Lummi Indian Tribe, 235 F.3d 443, 448 (9th Cir. 2000) (quoting Nat l Distribution Agency -2- v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 117 F.3d 432, 433 (9th Cir. 1997)). The current appeal satisfies neither requirement. The district court denied the motion without prejudice to renewal as a new subproceeding and even retained paper copies of the parties pleadings so that [their] effort need not be duplicated. The district court also explained that the parties substantive dispute remains to be determined. Accordingly, we lack jurisdiction over this appeal. DISMISSED. -3-

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.