JAMUL ACTION COMMITTEE V. JONODEV CHAUDHURI, No. 15-16021 (9th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this Case
The court issued a subsequent related opinion or order on July 15, 2016.
The court issued a subsequent related opinion or order on August 19, 2016.
Download PDF
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 09 2016 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK JAMUL ACTION COMMITTEE; et al., Plaintiffs - Appellants, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 15-16021 D.C. No. 2:13-cv-01920-KJMKJN v. JONODEV CHAUDHURI, Chairwoman of the National Indian Gaming Commission; et al., MEMORANDUM* Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California Kimberly J. Mueller, District Judge, Presiding Argued and Submitted December 7, 2015 San Francisco, California Before: KOZINSKI, BYBEE, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges. 1. The district court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to compel the National Indian Gaming Commission (“NIGC”) to more quickly release a supplemental environmental impact statement analyzing NIGC’s approval of Jamul * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. Indian Village’s gaming management contract. Construction of the casino was not contingent on NIGC’s approval of the management contract, see 25 U.S.C. § 2710(d)(9) (“An Indian tribe may enter into a management contract . . . .” (emphasis added)), and NEPA therefore set no strict timetable for agency action in this case, see Sierra Club v. Gorsuch, 715 F.2d 653, 658–59 (D.C. Cir. 1983) (“Absent a precise statutory timetable or other factors counseling expeditious action, an agency’s control over the timetable of [its action] is entitled to considerable deference.”). 2. The district court did not abuse its discretion by rejecting plaintiffs’ request for a preliminary injunction. Plaintiffs have not shown a likelihood of success on the merits of their NEPA claim, and their contentions that defendants violated the state–tribal compact and the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act are likewise without merit. See Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008) (“A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must establish that he is likely to succeed on the merits.”). 3. To the extent plaintiffs contend that the land on which the Jamul casino is being built is not Indian land, circuit precedent forecloses that argument. See Big Lagoon Rancheria v. California, 789 F.3d 947, 953 (9th Cir. 2015) (en banc). AFFIRMED.
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.
