Bishop Paiute Tribe v. Inyo County, No. 15-16604 (9th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this CaseThe Tribe filed suit seeking a declaration that it has the right to investigate violations of tribal, state, and federal law, detain, and transport or deliver a non-Indian violator encountered on the reservation to the proper authorities. The Ninth Circuit held that the first amended complaint raised a federal question that provided federal courts with subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1331; the Tribe has presented a prudentially ripe case or controversy and the case is constitutionally ripe as well; and the district court's conclusion that the Tribe's response letter mooted all controversies between the parties was erroneous. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded.
Court Description: Federal Question Jurisdiction / Ripeness The panel reversed the district court’s dismissal on jurisdictional grounds of an action brought by an Indian tribe, seeking a declaration regarding the tribe’s right to conduct law enforcement on its reservation. The panel held that because the tribe had alleged violations of federal common law, it had adequately pleaded a federal question providing the district court with subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. The panel held that the case was constitutionally and prudentially ripe because there was an actual and imminent threat to a concrete interest of the tribe, and the case was fit for judicial decision. In addition, the case was not moot. The panel remanded the case to the district court for further proceedings.
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.