Home

Back to the Indian Law Bulletins

(Cite as: 2005 WL 1843296 (9th Cir.(Mont.)))

This case was not selected for publication in the Federal Reporter.

Please look at the applicable circuit court rule before citing this opinion. (CTA9 Rule 36-3.)

United States Court of Appeals,

Ninth Circuit.

Edward FILESTEEL, Plaintiff,

and

Levi Enemy Boy, Plaintiff--Appellant,

v.

Joseph MCCONNEL, Tribal Chairman Fort Belknap Indian Community, Defendant,

and

Cleo Hamilton, Superintendent, Bureau of Indian Affairs; Gale A. Norton,

Secretary of the Department of Interior, United States of America, Defendants--

Appellees.

No. 04-36111.

D.C. No. CV-01-00115-SEH.


Submitted Aug. 1, 2005. [FN**]

FN** The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

   Decided Aug. 4, 2005.

Levi Enemy Boy, Hays, MT, pro se.

George F. Darragh, Jr., Esq., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Great Falls, MT, for Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Montana,  Sam E. Haddon, District Judge, Presiding.

Before O'SCANNLAIN, CALLAHAN, and BEA, Circuit Judges.


MEMORANDUM  [FN*]

FN* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

*1 Levi Enemy Boy appeals pro se the district court's order dismissing the action filed by Enemy Boy and Edward Filesteel, members of the Assiniboine and Gros Ventre Tribes of the Fort Belknap Indian Reservation, challenging the validity of a secretarial election, which amended the constitution and charter of the Fort Belknap Indian Community. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S .C. § 1291. We review de novo the dismissal of an action, Arrington v. Wong, 237 F.3d 1066, 1069 (9th Cir.2001), and we affirm.

The action was brought before the district court under the Administrative Procedures Act ("APA"), 5 U.S.C. § 706 and the Indian Reorganization Act, 25 U.S.C. § 476. Our review is governed by the APA, which provides that we may not set aside the decision of the agency unless "arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with the law." 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A).

Enemy Boy's showing is insufficient to establish that the challenged secretarial election was not conducted in accordance with the tribal constitution and applicable statutes and regulations. See 25 U.S.C. § 476; see generally 25 C.F.R. § 81.

AFFIRMED.

Home  |   Search  |   Disclaimer  |   Privacy Statement  |   Site Map