RAYMOND CROSS V. USDOI, No. 19-15929 (9th Cir. 2020)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION SEP 16 2020 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT RAYMOND CROSS, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 19-15929 Plaintiff-Appellant, v. D.C. No. 4:18-cv-00220-CKJ MEMORANDUM* U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, Defendant-Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona Cindy K. Jorgenson, District Judge, Presiding Submitted September 8, 2020** Before: TASHIMA, SILVERMAN, and OWENS, Circuit Judges. 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. * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). § 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 (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. 2 19-15929

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.