%PDF-1.3
%%
%%Page: 1 1
4 0 obj
<<
/Length 5 0 R
>>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 664.5 Tm
/F1 13 Tf 100 Tz
88.1395 -8.4 Td
1.3 Tw
0 Tc
(FOR PUBLICATION) Tj
/F1 15 Tf 100 Tz
-78.2395 -24 Td
1.5 Tw
(UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS) Tj
43.47 -16 Td
(FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
-53.37 -18 Td
1.2 Tw
() Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1.2 Tw
0 0 Td
183.8 0 Td
/F3 20 Tf 100 Tz
-2.18 -17.6 Td
2 Tw
() Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
-181.62 -2.8 Td
1.2 Tw
(R) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(OSS) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( A) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(TWOOD) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
(,) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
80.988 -13.2 Td
(Plaintiff-Appellant,) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
134.082 -6.6 Td
(No. 06-35299) Tj
-132.57 -11.4 Td
(v.) Tj
144.234 -6.6 Td
(D.C. No.) Tj
/F3 20 Tf 100 Tz
-45.114 -7.9 Td
2 Tw
() Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
-181.62 -3.5 Td
1.2 Tw
(F) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(ORT) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( P) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(ECK) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( T) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(RIBAL) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( C) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(OURT) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
202.332 -1.8 Td
1.2 Tw
(CV-05-00165-RFC) Tj
-202.332 -11.4 Td
(A) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(SSINIBOINE) Tj
2.12 Tw
( ) Tj
.79 Tw
(AND) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( S) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(IOUX) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( T) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(RIBES) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
(; and) Tj
224.34 -6.6 Td
(OPINION) Tj
-224.34 -6.6 Td
(L) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(INDA) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( L. F) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(LYNN) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( H) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(ANSON) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
(,) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
65.688 -13.2 Td
(Defendants-Appellees.) Tj
/F3 20 Tf 100 Tz
115.932 -8.8 Td
1.6 Ts
2 Tw
() Tj
0 Ts
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
-142.878 -26.2 Td
1.2 Tw
(Appeal from the United States District Court) Tj
44.202 -13.2 Td
(for the District of Montana) Tj
-40.944 -13.2 Td
(Richard F. Cebull, District Judge, Presiding) Tj
32.202 -26.2 Td
(Submitted November 6, 2007*) Tj
26.868 -13.2 Td
(Seattle, Washington) Tj
-7.866 -26.2 Td
(Filed January 18, 2008) Tj
-70.656 -26.2 Td
(Before: William) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1.2 Tw
(C.) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1.2 Tw
(Canby,) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1.2 Tw
(Jr., Susan) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1.2 Tw
(P.) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1.2 Tw
(Graber, and) Tj
45.684 -13.2 Td
(Ronald) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1.2 Tw
(M.) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1.2 Tw
(Gould, Circuit) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1.2 Tw
(Judges.) Tj
19.146 -26.2 Td
(Opinion by Judge Graber) Tj
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 156 664.5 cm
0 G
.9 w 0 -65.95 m 183.8 -65.95 l s
1.2 w 186.6 -116.9 m 186.6 -73.8 l s
1.2 w 186.6 -177 m 186.6 -133.9 l s
.9 w 0 -183.95 m 183.3 -183.95 l s
Q
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 189.7 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
148.5 -1 Td
1.2 Tw
0 Tc
() Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1.2 Tw
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
-138.5 -26 Td
1.7 Tw
(*The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without) Tj
-10 -11.2 Td
1 Tw
(oral argument. Fed. R. App. P. 34\(a\)\(2\). ) Tj
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 156 189.7 cm
0 G
.5 w 0 -12.75 m 300 -12.75 l s
Q
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
297.75 -664.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(691) Tj
ET
Q
endstream
endobj
5 0 obj
3374
endobj
3 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
/Parent 10 0 R
/Resources <<
/Font <<
/F1 6 0 R
/F2 7 0 R
/F3 8 0 R
/F4 9 0 R
>>
/ProcSet 1 0 R
>>
/Contents 4 0 R
>>
endobj
%%Page: 2 2
12 0 obj
<<
/Length 13 0 R
>>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F1 12 Tf 100 Tz
120.996 -27.6 Td
1.2 Tw
0 Tc
(COUNSEL) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
-120.996 -26.2 Td
3.47 Tw
(J. Gregory Tomicich, Billings, Montana, for the plaintiff-) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
1.2 Tw
(appellant. ) Tj
0 -26.2 Td
.92 Tw
(Ryan C. Rusche, Poplar, Montana, and Carol C. Johns, Wolf) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
1.2 Tw
(Point, Montana, for the defendants-appellees.) Tj
/F1 12 Tf 100 Tz
123.666 -44.2 Td
(OPINION) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
-123.666 -26.2 Td
(GRABER, Circuit Judge: ) Tj
12 -26.2 Td
1.08 Tw
(This case involves a custody dispute concerning an Indian) Tj
-12 -13.2 Td
3.37 Tw
(child, Lexie. After the untimely death of Lexie's mother,) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
3.04 Tw
(Lexie's maternal aunt, Defendant Linda L. Flynn Hanson,) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
3.18 Tw
(sought custody through Defendant Fort Peck Tribal Court) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
.38 Tw
(\(Tribal Court) Tj
(\). The Tribal Court granted temporary custody) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
1 Tw
(to Lexie's maternal grandmother pending the outcome of the) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
4.1 Tw
(custody dispute. Lexie's non-Indian father, Plaintiff Ross) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
3.25 Tw
(Atwood, then brought this action in federal district court,) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
1.66 Tw
(challenging the jurisdiction of the Tribal Court and alleging) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
2.87 Tw
(a substantive due process violation. The district court dis-) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
1.53 Tw
(missed the case, relying on the domestic relations exception) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
3.66 Tw
(to subject matter jurisdiction and on Plaintiff's failure to) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
1.2 Tw
(exhaust tribal court remedies. ) Tj
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 cm
0 G
.5 w 0 -8.15 m 300 -8.15 l s
.5 w 0 -131.15 m 300 -131.15 l s
Q
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
439.5 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(693) Tj
-216.7937 0 Td
(A) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(TWOOD) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. F) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(ORT) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( P) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(ECK) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( T) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(RIBAL) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( C) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(OURT) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
13 0 obj
2313
endobj
11 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
/Parent 10 0 R
/Resources <<
/Font <<
/F1 6 0 R
/F2 7 0 R
>>
/ProcSet 1 0 R
>>
/Contents 12 0 R
>>
endobj
%%Page: 3 3
15 0 obj
<<
/Length 16 0 R
>>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
12 -8.4 Td
.46 Tw
0 Tc
(We hold that the ) Tj
(domestic relations exception,) Tj
( a doctrine) Tj
-12 -13.3 Td
.51 Tw
(divesting the federal courts of jurisdiction, applies only to the) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
1.82 Tw
(diversity jurisdiction statute, 28 U.S.C. ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1.82 Tw
(1332, and that the) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
1 Tw
(district court erred by applying the domestic relations excep-) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
2 Tw
(tion because federal question jurisdiction exists in this case) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
2.14 Tw
(under 28 U.S.C. ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
2.14 Tw
(1331. We affirm the district court's dis-) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
1.9 Tw
(missal nonetheless, because Plaintiff failed to exhaust tribal) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
1.2 Tw
(court remedies.) Tj
37.038 -26.4 Td
(FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY) Tj
-25.038 -26.4 Td
2 Tw
(Plaintiff and Lexie's mother never married. In late 1997,) Tj
-12 -13.3 Td
1.9 Tw
(when Lexie was two years old, Plaintiff filed a petition for) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
.8 Tw
(custody in the Tribal Court. After a hearing, the Tribal Court) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
.71 Tw
(entered a custody agreement for Lexie on February 20, 1998.) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
.33 Tw
(That agreement granted the parents ) Tj
(joint legal custody of the) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
3.36 Tw
(child, with the Mother to have physical custody, and the) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
3.05 Tw
(Father having [specified visitation rights].) Tj
( The agreement) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
.76 Tw
(also stated that ) Tj
(the Fort Peck Tribal Court, Fort Peck Indian) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
.91 Tw
(Reservation shall continue to have jurisdiction over this mat-) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
1.2 Tw
(ter. ) Tj
12 -26.3 Td
3.03 Tw
(On July 16, 2005, Lexie's mother died, and Lexie was) Tj
-12 -13.3 Td
.03 Tw
(taken to stay with her maternal grandmother. Lexie's maternal) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
.04 Tw
(aunt, Defendant Hanson, thereafter petitioned the Tribal Court) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
3.03 Tw
(for custody of Lexie.) Tj
4.9 Ts
/F5 6 Tf 100 Tz
(1) Tj
0 Ts
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( On September 23, 2005, that court) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
3.22 Tw
(ordered that Lexie remain in the custody of her maternal) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
4.47 Tw
(grandmother pending the outcome of the petition. Lexie) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
.62 Tw
(remains in the physical custody of her maternal grandmother,) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
.14 Tw
(and the custody case remains pending before the Tribal Court.) Tj
12 -26.3 Td
3.36 Tw
(On October 7, 2005, two weeks after the Tribal Court) Tj
-12 -13.2 Td
.14 Tw
(issued its order, the Thirteenth Judicial District Court of Mon-) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
10 -26 Td
4.1 Ts
/F5 6 Tf 100 Tz
.69 Tw
(1) Tj
0 Ts
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
(The record is not entirely clear on the status \(Indian or non-Indian\) of) Tj
-10 -11.2 Td
.03 Tw
(Defendant Hanson and of Lexie's maternal grandmother. Determination of) Tj
0 -11.2 Td
.42 Tw
(those factual questions is unnecessary to the resolution of the issue before) Tj
0 -11.2 Td
1 Tw
(us. ) Tj
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 cm
0 G
.5 w 0 -444.15 m 300 -444.15 l s
Q
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
156 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(694) Tj
66.7063 0 Td
(A) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(TWOOD) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. F) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(ORT) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( P) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(ECK) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( T) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(RIBAL) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( C) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(OURT) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
16 0 obj
3675
endobj
14 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
/Parent 10 0 R
/Resources <<
/Font <<
/F1 6 0 R
/F2 7 0 R
/F5 17 0 R
>>
/ProcSet 1 0 R
>>
/Contents 15 0 R
>>
endobj
%%Page: 4 4
19 0 obj
<<
/Length 20 0 R
>>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -8.4 Td
3.03 Tw
0 Tc
(tana granted immediate custody of Lexie to Plaintiff. The) Tj
0 -14.3 Td
.45 Tw
(state court's order shows that the state court was aware of the) Tj
0 -14.3 Td
1.62 Tw
(1998 custody agreement, but gives no indication that it was) Tj
0 -14.3 Td
2.44 Tw
(aware of the Tribal Court's recent order. According to the) Tj
0 -14.3 Td
.33 Tw
(federal district court in this case, ) Tj
([a]pparently, the Thirteenth) Tj
0 -14.3 Td
1.11 Tw
(Judicial District Court terminated enforcement upon learning) Tj
0 -14.3 Td
.5 Tw
(of the pending tribal court matter.) Tj
( The parties do not dispute) Tj
0 -14.3 Td
1.2 Tw
(that finding. ) Tj
12 -28.4 Td
1.3 Tw
(On December 29, 2005, Plaintiff filed a complaint in fed-) Tj
-12 -14.3 Td
4.37 Tw
(eral district court. The complaint alleges that the Tribal) Tj
0 -14.3 Td
.18 Tw
(Court's order violates his substantive due process right to par-) Tj
0 -14.3 Td
2.63 Tw
(ent his child and that Defendant Hanson lacks standing in) Tj
0 -14.3 Td
.28 Tw
(Tribal Court. Plaintiff sought injunctive relief, specifically, an) Tj
0 -14.3 Td
.53 Tw
(order requiring that Lexie's grandmother return Lexie to him,) Tj
0 -14.3 Td
2.73 Tw
(an order divesting the Tribal Court of jurisdiction, and an) Tj
0 -14.3 Td
.12 Tw
(award of custody. The complaint alleges both federal question) Tj
0 -14.3 Td
1.2 Tw
(jurisdiction and diversity jurisdiction. ) Tj
12 -28.3 Td
1.83 Tw
(On March 8, 2006, the district court granted Defendants') Tj
-12 -14.3 Td
1.4 Tw
(motion to dismiss the complaint. The district court held that) Tj
0 -14.3 Td
3.08 Tw
(the domestic relations exception divested it of jurisdiction) Tj
0 -14.3 Td
1.73 Tw
(and, in the alternative, that it would choose to abstain from) Tj
0 -14.3 Td
.4 Tw
(intervening in a domestic relations matter that was pending in) Tj
0 -14.2 Td
1.2 Tw
(a tribal court. Plaintiff timely appealed. ) Tj
82.14 -28.3 Td
(STANDARD OF REVIEW) Tj
-70.14 -28.3 Td
1.22 Tw
(We review de novo whether we have subject matter juris-) Tj
-12 -14.2 Td
.3 Tw
(diction. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Schnabel v. Lui) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 302 F.3d 1023, 1029 \(9th Cir. 2002\).) Tj
0 -14.2 Td
.55 Tw
(We also review de novo ) Tj
([w]hether exhaustion of tribal court) Tj
0 -14.2 Td
1.85 Tw
(remedies is required.) Tj
( ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Boozer v. Wilder) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 381 F.3d 931, 934) Tj
0 -14.2 Td
1.2 Tw
(\(9th Cir. 2004\).) Tj
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
439.5 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(695) Tj
-216.7937 0 Td
(A) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(TWOOD) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. F) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(ORT) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( P) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(ECK) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( T) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(RIBAL) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( C) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(OURT) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
20 0 obj
3136
endobj
18 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
/Parent 10 0 R
/Resources <<
/Font <<
/F1 6 0 R
/F2 7 0 R
/F4 9 0 R
>>
/ProcSet 1 0 R
>>
/Contents 19 0 R
>>
endobj
%%Page: 5 5
22 0 obj
<<
/Length 23 0 R
>>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
114.666 -8.4 Td
1.2 Tw
0 Tc
(DISCUSSION) Tj
-103.666 -26.5 Td
8.06 Tw
(A.) Tj
9 Tw
( ) Tj
8.06 Tw
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Subject Matter Jurisdiction and the ) Tj
(Domestic) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1.2 Tw
(Relations Exception) Tj
( ) Tj
/F1 12 Tf 100 Tz
1 -26.4 Td
2.14 Tw
([1]) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( Plaintiff's complaint alleges that ) Tj
([t]he maternal aunt) Tj
-12 -13.4 Td
.2 Tw
(has no standing [in Tribal Court] to petition for custody of the) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
.8 Tw
(child) Tj
( and that the Tribal Court's order is ) Tj
(a substantive vio-) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
.44 Tw
(lation of Plaintiff's constitutional right to parent his child.) Tj
( In) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
(other words, Plaintiff alleges that ) Tj
(a tribal court has exceeded) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
.25 Tw
(the lawful limits of its jurisdiction.) Tj
( ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Nat'l Farmers Union Ins.) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
2.56 Tw
(Cos. v. Crow Tribe of Indians) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 471 U.S. 845, 853 \(1985\).) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
3.75 Tw
(Non-Indians may bring a federal common law cause of) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
.92 Tw
(action under 28 U.S.C. ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
.92 Tw
(1331 to challenge tribal court juris-) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
1.06 Tw
(diction. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Boozer) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 381 F.3d at 934 \(citing ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Nat'l Farmers) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 471) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
1.12 Tw
(U.S. at 850-53\). Federal courts therefore have subject matter) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
1.04 Tw
(jurisdiction under the federal question jurisdiction statute, 28) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
.55 Tw
(U.S.C. ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
.55 Tw
(1331, because the case arises under federal common) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
1.2 Tw
(law.) Tj
4.9 Ts
/F5 6 Tf 100 Tz
.5 Tw
(2) Tj
0 Ts
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
1.2 Tw
( ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Nat'l Farmers) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 471 U.S. at 853. ) Tj
/F1 12 Tf 100 Tz
12 -26.4 Td
3.17 Tw
([2]) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( Both in his complaint and before the district court,) Tj
-12 -13.3 Td
1.37 Tw
(Plaintiff asserted subject matter jurisdiction on two grounds:) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
1.08 Tw
(federal question jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1.08 Tw
(1331, and diversity) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
2.71 Tw
(jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
2.71 Tw
(1332. The district court expressly) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
.33 Tw
(declined to decide ) Tj
(whether this Court has federal question or) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
.42 Tw
(diversity jurisdiction) Tj
( and held that, regardless, the ) Tj
(domestic) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
5.71 Tw
(relations exception to federal jurisdiction) Tj
( applied. The) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
3.62 Tw
(Supreme Court has long recognized that, when the relief) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
4.18 Tw
(sought relates primarily to domestic relations, a doctrine) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
.75 Tw
(referred to as the domestic relations exception divests federal) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
1.93 Tw
(courts of jurisdiction. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(See, e.g.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(In re Burrus) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 136 U.S. 586) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
2.85 Tw
(\(1890\); ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Barber v. Barber) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 62 U.S. \(21 How.\) 582 \(1858\).) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
10 -26.2 Td
4.1 Ts
/F5 6 Tf 100 Tz
.22 Tw
(2) Tj
0 Ts
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
(Because we have subject matter jurisdiction under ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
.22 Tw
(1331, we need not) Tj
-10 -11.2 Td
2.34 Tw
(determine whether an alternative basis for jurisdiction also exists. ) Tj
/F4 10 Tf 100 Tz
(See) Tj
0 -11.2 Td
.55 Tw
(Boozer) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
(, 381 F.3d at 934 n.2 \(holding that jurisdiction exists under federal) Tj
0 -11.2 Td
1.26 Tw
(common law and declining to address the plaintiff's alternative jurisdic-) Tj
0 -11.2 Td
1 Tw
(tional theory\). ) Tj
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 cm
0 G
.5 w 0 -432.85 m 300 -432.85 l s
Q
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
156 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(696) Tj
66.7063 0 Td
(A) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(TWOOD) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. F) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(ORT) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( P) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(ECK) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( T) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(RIBAL) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( C) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(OURT) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
23 0 obj
4516
endobj
21 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
/Parent 10 0 R
/Resources <<
/Font <<
/F1 6 0 R
/F2 7 0 R
/F4 9 0 R
/F5 17 0 R
>>
/ProcSet 1 0 R
>>
/Contents 22 0 R
>>
endobj
%%Page: 6 6
25 0 obj
<<
/Length 26 0 R
>>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -8.4 Td
.5 Tw
0 Tc
(Plaintiff argues that the domestic relations exception does not) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
1.78 Tw
(apply in this case, because subject matter jurisdiction exists) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
.37 Tw
(under the federal question jurisdiction statute, ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
.37 Tw
(1331, and the) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
3.75 Tw
(domestic relations exception applies only to the diversity) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
1.2 Tw
(jurisdiction statute, ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1.2 Tw
(1332. We agree. ) Tj
12 -26.7 Td
2.08 Tw
(The Supreme Court discussed the nature of the domestic) Tj
-12 -13.5 Td
.66 Tw
(relations exception at length in ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Ankenbrandt v. Richards) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 504) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
.1 Tw
(U.S. 689 \(1992\). The Court traced the history of the exception) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
.33 Tw
(and concluded, first, that the exception is not of constitutional) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
3.06 Tw
(dimension. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Id.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( at 695. That is, ) Tj
(the Constitution does not) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
1.47 Tw
(exclude domestic relations cases from the jurisdiction other-) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
1.2 Tw
(wise granted by statute to the federal courts.) Tj
( ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Id.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( ) Tj
12 -26.7 Td
1.66 Tw
(But, the Court held, the diversity jurisdiction statute does) Tj
-12 -13.5 Td
.47 Tw
(exclude such cases. In reasoning to that conclusion, the Court) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
.11 Tw
(examined the text and history of the diversity jurisdiction stat-) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
(ute. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Id.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( at 698. The Court held that the exception derived from) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
.66 Tw
(Congress' intent to exclude domestic relations cases from the) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
1.18 Tw
(predecessor to 28 U.S.C. ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1.18 Tw
(1332. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Id.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( at 700. When Congress) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
.9 Tw
(later amended the diversity statute, it meant to leave in place) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
2.78 Tw
(the domestic relations exception. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Id.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( at 700-01. The Court) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
.43 Tw
(concluded that, in cases falling within the scope of the excep-) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1.11 Tw
(tion to ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1.11 Tw
(1332, federal courts lack jurisdiction. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Id.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( at 701-03.) Tj
/F1 12 Tf 100 Tz
12 -26.6 Td
2.12 Tw
([3]) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( In sum, ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Ankenbrandt) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( held that the domestic relations) Tj
-12 -13.4 Td
1.37 Tw
(exception was not of constitutional dimension, but rested on) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1.14 Tw
(Congress' intent in enacting the ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(diversity) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( jurisdiction statute,) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
3.51 Tw
(28 U.S.C. ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
3.51 Tw
(1332. Although ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Ankenbrandt) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( did not address) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
.41 Tw
(whether the exception applies to the ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(federal question) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( jurisdic-) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1.5 Tw
(tion statute, 28 U.S.C. ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1.5 Tw
(1331, the Court's reasoning plainly) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1.9 Tw
(does not apply to that statute. We therefore join the Fourth) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
4.23 Tw
(and Fifth Circuits in holding that the domestic relations) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
.28 Tw
(exception applies only to the diversity jurisdiction statute. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(See) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
.7 Tw
(United States v. Bailey) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 115 F.3d 1222, 1231 \(5th Cir. 1997\);) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -13.4 Td
.96 Tw
(United States v. Johnson) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 114 F.3d 476, 481 \(4th Cir. 1997\);) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -13.4 Td
1.09 Tw
(see also ) Tj
(Flood v. Braaten) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 727 F.2d 303, 307 \(3d Cir. 1984\)) Tj
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
439.5 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(697) Tj
-216.7937 0 Td
(A) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(TWOOD) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. F) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(ORT) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( P) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(ECK) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( T) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(RIBAL) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( C) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(OURT) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
26 0 obj
4523
endobj
24 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
/Parent 10 0 R
/Resources <<
/Font <<
/F1 6 0 R
/F2 7 0 R
/F4 9 0 R
>>
/ProcSet 1 0 R
>>
/Contents 25 0 R
>>
endobj
%%Page: 7 7
28 0 obj
<<
/Length 29 0 R
>>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -8.4 Td
2.58 Tw
0 Tc
(\(reaching the same conclusion in a case pre-dating ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Anken-) Tj
0 -13 Td
1.2 Tw
(brandt) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(\). ) Tj
12 -26 Td
1.81 Tw
(Our holding today is driven by the Supreme Court's rea-) Tj
-12 -13 Td
.36 Tw
(soning in ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Ankenbrandt) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, but it also is consistent with our cases) Tj
0 -13 Td
1.95 Tw
(pre-dating ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Ankenbrandt) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(See ) Tj
(Csibi v. Fustos) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 670 F.2d 134,) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.47 Tw
(136 n.4 \(9th Cir. 1982\) \() Tj
(Thus, domestic relations cases are) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.77 Tw
(within the Article III judicial power of the federal courts, but) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.55 Tw
(outside the power bestowed by Congress in the diversity stat-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
3.28 Tw
(ute.\). Of note, the First Circuit mistakenly identified the) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.69 Tw
(Ninth Circuit as the only circuit to hold the ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(opposite) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(: that the) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.42 Tw
(domestic relations exception applies to more than diversity) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.5 Tw
(actions. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(See ) Tj
(Mandel v. Town of Orleans) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 326 F.3d 267, 271) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.62 Tw
(& n.3 \(1st Cir. 2003\) \(citing ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Thompson v. Thompson) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 798) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.58 Tw
(F.2d 1547, 1558 \(9th Cir. 1986\) \(per curiam\)\). We disagree) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.03 Tw
(with the First Circuit's characterization of ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Thompson) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(. In that) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
(case, we looked to the policies underlying the domestic rela-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.16 Tw
(tions exception for guidance in answering a statutory interpre-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.43 Tw
(tation question; we did not apply the exception at all. 798) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.48 Tw
(F.2d at 1558. In any event, we clarify today that the domestic) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.14 Tw
(relations exception applies only to the diversity jurisdiction) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(statute. ) Tj
/F1 12 Tf 100 Tz
12 -26 Td
1.45 Tw
([4]) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( In conclusion, subject matter jurisdiction exists in this) Tj
-12 -13.1 Td
2.5 Tw
(case under ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
2.5 Tw
(1331 and federal common law. The domestic) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(relations exception does not apply. ) Tj
11 -26 Td
(B.) Tj
9 Tw
( ) Tj
1.2 Tw
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Exhaustion of Tribal Court Remedies) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( ) Tj
/F1 12 Tf 100 Tz
1 -26 Td
1.3 Tw
([5]) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( In dismissing the case, the district court also relied on) Tj
-12 -13.1 Td
.66 Tw
(the fact that Plaintiff had not exhausted tribal court remedies.) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.96 Tw
(Under the doctrine of exhaustion of tribal court remedies,) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
0 Tw
(relief may not be sought in federal court until appellate review) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.48 Tw
(of a pending matter in a tribal court is complete. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Iowa Mut.) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.93 Tw
(Ins. Co. v. LaPlante) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 480 U.S. 9, 17 \(1987\); ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(see also ) Tj
(Nat'l) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.66 Tw
(Farmers) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 471 U.S. at 856-57 \(applying the doctrine\); ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Boozer) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(,) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.93 Tw
(381 F.3d at 935-37 \(same\). ) Tj
([T]he exhaustion rule . . . [i]s) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
3.33 Tw
(`prudential,' not jurisdictional.) Tj
( ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Strate v. A-1 Contractors) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(,) Tj
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
156 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(698) Tj
66.7063 0 Td
(A) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(TWOOD) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. F) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(ORT) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( P) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(ECK) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( T) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(RIBAL) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( C) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(OURT) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
29 0 obj
4277
endobj
27 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
/Parent 30 0 R
/Resources <<
/Font <<
/F1 6 0 R
/F2 7 0 R
/F4 9 0 R
>>
/ProcSet 1 0 R
>>
/Contents 28 0 R
>>
endobj
%%Page: 8 8
32 0 obj
<<
/Length 33 0 R
>>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -8.4 Td
.48 Tw
0 Tc
(520 U.S. 438, 451 \(1997\). As a matter of discretion, a district) Tj
0 -13 Td
2.45 Tw
(court may either dismiss a case or stay the action while a) Tj
0 -13 Td
2.33 Tw
(tribal court handles the matter. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Nat'l Farmers) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 471 U.S. at) Tj
0 -13 Td
.63 Tw
(857. Because the parties do not dispute that the custody issue) Tj
0 -13 Td
.16 Tw
(is still pending before the Tribal Court, the district court prop-) Tj
0 -13 Td
2.33 Tw
(erly exercised its discretion and dismissed this case due to) Tj
0 -13 Td
1.2 Tw
(Plaintiff's failure to exhaust tribal court remedies. ) Tj
12 -26 Td
.32 Tw
(Although the Supreme Court has crafted narrow exceptions) Tj
-12 -13 Td
1.27 Tw
(to the exhaustion rule, none applies here. There has been no) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.81 Tw
(showing that Defendant Hanson asserted tribal jurisdiction in) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.11 Tw
(bad faith or that she acted to harass Plaintiff. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Nevada v. Hicks) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(,) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.72 Tw
(533 U.S. 353, 369 \(2001\). Nor can it be said that requiring) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.96 Tw
(exhaustion in this case ) Tj
(would serve no purpose other than) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(delay. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Id.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( \(internal quotation marks omitted\). ) Tj
12 -26 Td
.16 Tw
(Finally, it is not ) Tj
(plain) Tj
( that tribal court jurisdiction is lack-) Tj
-12 -13.1 Td
1.27 Tw
(ing. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Id.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( \(citing ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Strate) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 471 U.S. at 459-60 & n.14\). We have) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.57 Tw
(equated that inquiry with whether jurisdiction is ) Tj
(colorable) Tj
() Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.25 Tw
(or ) Tj
(plausible.) Tj
( ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Allstate Indem. Co. v. Stump) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 191 F.3d 1071,) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.53 Tw
(1075-76 \(9th Cir. 1999\). Here, tribal court jurisdiction almost) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.52 Tw
(certainly is proper and therefore unquestionably is ) Tj
(plausi-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.47 Tw
(ble. First, the 1998 custody agreement \(the validity of which) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.25 Tw
(Plaintiff does not challenge\) states that the Tribal Court ) Tj
(shall) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.41 Tw
(continue to have jurisdiction over this matter.) Tj
( Second, Plain-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.14 Tw
(tiff availed himself of that forum voluntarily when the origi-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
4.83 Tw
(nal custody dispute arose in 1997, which is at least a) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
3.32 Tw
(colorable basis for jurisdiction, even though the current) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.93 Tw
(tribal court case was not initiated by Plaintiff. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(See ) Tj
(Smith v.) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.81 Tw
(Salish Kootenai Coll.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 434 F.3d 1127, 1140 \(9th Cir.\) \(en) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.58 Tw
(banc\) \() Tj
(We hold that a nonmember who knowingly enters) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
3.06 Tw
(tribal courts for the purpose of filing suit against a tribal) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.2 Tw
(member has, by the act of filing his claims, entered into a) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.37 Tw
(`consensual relationship' with the tribe . . . .) Tj
(\), ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(cert. denied) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(,) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.87 Tw
(126 S.) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
2.87 Tw
(Ct. 2893 \(2006\). Third, the suit primarily concerns) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.48 Tw
(Lexie, who ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(is) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( a member of the tribe. Although the rights of) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.57 Tw
(non-member Plaintiff are affected, it is not clear that that fact) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(alone would strip the Tribal Court of jurisdiction.) Tj
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
439.5 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(699) Tj
-216.7937 0 Td
(A) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(TWOOD) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. F) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(ORT) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( P) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(ECK) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( T) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(RIBAL) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( C) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(OURT) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
33 0 obj
4351
endobj
31 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
/Parent 30 0 R
/Resources <<
/Font <<
/F1 6 0 R
/F2 7 0 R
/F4 9 0 R
>>
/ProcSet 1 0 R
>>
/Contents 32 0 R
>>
endobj
%%Page: 9 9
35 0 obj
<<
/Length 36 0 R
>>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
111.336 -8.4 Td
1.2 Tw
0 Tc
(CONCLUSION) Tj
-99.336 -26.2 Td
.82 Tw
(We hold that the domestic relations exception applies only) Tj
-12 -13.2 Td
.07 Tw
(to the diversity jurisdiction statute, 28 U.S.C. ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
.07 Tw
(1332. Because) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
1.15 Tw
(federal courts have jurisdiction in this case under the federal) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
2.98 Tw
(question jurisdiction statute, 28 U.S.C. ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
2.98 Tw
(1331, the district) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
3.81 Tw
(court erred by applying the domestic relations exception.) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
2.12 Tw
(Nonetheless, we affirm the district court's dismissal of this) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
.41 Tw
(case because Plaintiff has not exhausted his tribal court reme-) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
1.2 Tw
(dies. ) Tj
12 -26.2 Td
(AFFIRMED. ) Tj
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
156 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(700) Tj
66.7063 0 Td
(A) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(TWOOD) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. F) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(ORT) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( P) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(ECK) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( T) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(RIBAL) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( C) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(OURT) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
36 0 obj
1414
endobj
34 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
/Parent 30 0 R
/Resources <<
/Font <<
/F1 6 0 R
/F2 7 0 R
>>
/ProcSet 1 0 R
>>
/Contents 35 0 R
>>
endobj
1 0 obj
[ /PDF /Text ]
endobj
37 0 obj
<<
/Type /Encoding
/Differences [ 219 /Zcaron 135 /ccedilla 152 /ydieresis 243 /atilde 140 /icircumflex
31 /threesuperior 136 /ecircumflex 146 /thorn 138 /egrave 30 /twosuperior 130 /eacute
254 /otilde 155 /Aacute 147 /ocircumflex 217 /yacute 129 /udieresis 247 /threequarters
131 /acircumflex 190 /Eth 137 /edieresis 151 /ugrave 223 /trademark 149 /ograve 215 /scaron
228 /Idieresis 218 /uacute 133 /agrave 210 /ntilde 134 /aring 220 /zcaron 226 /Icircumflex
209 /Ntilde 150 /ucircumflex 159 /Ecircumflex 224 /Iacute 128 /Ccedilla 153 /Odieresis
214 /Scaron 176 /Edieresis 229 /Igrave 132 /adieresis 236 /Ograve 181 /Egrave 242 /Ydieresis
221 /registered 237 /Otilde 244 /onequarter 240 /Ugrave 239 /Ucircumflex 145 /Thorn
25 /divide 158 /Atilde 238 /Uacute 231 /Ocircumflex 29 /logicalnot 143 /Aring 139 /idieresis
252 /iacute 160 /aacute 27 /plusminus 26 /multiply 154 /Udieresis 28 /minus 204 /onesuperior
144 /Eacute 156 /Acircumflex 222 /copyright 157 /Agrave 148 /odieresis 253 /oacute 127 /degree
141 /igrave 201 /mu 230 /Oacute 192 /eth 142 /Adieresis 216 /Yacute 255 /brokenbar 246 /onehalf
]
>>
endobj
38 0 obj
<<
/Type /FontDescriptor
/FontName /Times-Bold
/Flags 34
/FontBBox [ -168 -218 1000 935 ]
/MissingWidth 250
/StemV 139.00
/StemH 69.50
/ItalicAngle 0.00
/CapHeight 676
/XHeight 461
/Ascent 676
/Descent -205
/Leading 0
/MaxWidth 0
/AvgWidth 0
>>
endobj
6 0 obj
<<
/Type /Font
/Subtype /Type1
/Name /F1
/BaseFont /Times-Bold
/FirstChar 0
/LastChar 255
/Widths [ 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250
250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 570 570 570 570 570 300 300
250 333 555 500 500 1000 833 333 333 333 500 570 250 333 250 278
500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 333 333 570 570 570 500
930 722 667 722 722 667 611 778 778 389 500 778 667 944 722 778
611 778 722 556 667 722 722 1000 722 722 667 333 278 333 581 500
333 500 556 444 556 444 333 500 556 278 333 556 278 833 556 500
556 556 444 389 333 556 500 722 500 500 444 394 220 394 520 400
722 556 444 500 500 500 500 444 444 444 444 278 278 278 722 722
667 611 556 500 500 500 556 556 500 778 722 722 722 722 722 667
500 333 500 500 167 500 500 500 500 278 500 500 333 333 556 556
667 500 500 500 250 667 540 350 333 500 500 500 1000 1000 722 500
500 333 333 333 333 333 333 333 333 556 333 333 300 333 333 333
1000 722 556 250 250 250 556 389 722 500 556 667 444 747 747 1000
389 1000 389 300 389 389 778 778 667 778 1000 330 778 778 722 722
722 722 722 500 750 278 750 750 278 500 722 556 278 500 500 220 ]
/Encoding 37 0 R
/FontDescriptor 38 0 R
>>
endobj
39 0 obj
<<
/Type /Encoding
/Differences [ 219 /Zcaron 135 /ccedilla 152 /ydieresis 243 /atilde 140 /icircumflex
31 /threesuperior 136 /ecircumflex 146 /thorn 138 /egrave 30 /twosuperior 130 /eacute
254 /otilde 155 /Aacute 147 /ocircumflex 217 /yacute 129 /udieresis 247 /threequarters
131 /acircumflex 190 /Eth 137 /edieresis 151 /ugrave 223 /trademark 149 /ograve 215 /scaron
228 /Idieresis 218 /uacute 133 /agrave 210 /ntilde 134 /aring 220 /zcaron 226 /Icircumflex
209 /Ntilde 150 /ucircumflex 159 /Ecircumflex 224 /Iacute 128 /Ccedilla 153 /Odieresis
214 /Scaron 176 /Edieresis 229 /Igrave 132 /adieresis 236 /Ograve 181 /Egrave 242 /Ydieresis
221 /registered 237 /Otilde 244 /onequarter 240 /Ugrave 239 /Ucircumflex 145 /Thorn
25 /divide 158 /Atilde 238 /Uacute 231 /Ocircumflex 29 /logicalnot 143 /Aring 139 /idieresis
252 /iacute 160 /aacute 27 /plusminus 26 /multiply 154 /Udieresis 28 /minus 204 /onesuperior
144 /Eacute 156 /Acircumflex 222 /copyright 157 /Agrave 148 /odieresis 253 /oacute 127 /degree
141 /igrave 201 /mu 230 /Oacute 192 /eth 142 /Adieresis 216 /Yacute 255 /brokenbar 246 /onehalf
]
>>
endobj
40 0 obj
<<
/Type /FontDescriptor
/FontName /Times-Roman
/Flags 34
/FontBBox [ -168 -218 1000 898 ]
/MissingWidth 250
/StemV 84.00
/StemH 42.00
/ItalicAngle 0.00
/CapHeight 662
/XHeight 450
/Ascent 683
/Descent -217
/Leading 0
/MaxWidth 0
/AvgWidth 0
>>
endobj
7 0 obj
<<
/Type /Font
/Subtype /Type1
/Name /F2
/BaseFont /Times-Roman
/FirstChar 0
/LastChar 255
/Widths [ 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250
250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 564 564 564 564 564 300 300
250 333 408 500 500 833 778 333 333 333 500 564 250 333 250 278
500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 278 278 564 564 564 444
921 722 667 667 722 611 556 722 722 333 389 722 611 889 722 722
556 722 667 556 611 722 722 944 722 722 611 333 278 333 469 500
333 444 500 444 500 444 333 500 500 278 278 500 278 778 500 500
500 500 333 389 278 500 500 722 500 500 444 480 200 480 541 400
667 500 444 444 444 444 444 444 444 444 444 278 278 278 722 722
611 556 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 722 722 722 722 722 722 611
444 333 500 500 167 500 500 500 500 180 444 500 333 333 556 556
611 500 500 500 250 611 453 350 333 444 444 500 1000 1000 722 444
500 333 333 333 333 333 333 333 333 500 333 333 300 333 333 333
1000 722 500 250 250 250 556 389 722 500 500 611 444 760 760 980
333 889 333 276 333 333 722 722 611 722 889 310 722 722 722 722
722 667 722 444 750 278 750 750 278 500 722 500 278 500 500 200 ]
/Encoding 39 0 R
/FontDescriptor 40 0 R
>>
endobj
41 0 obj
<<
/Type /Encoding
/Differences [ 240 /apple ]
>>
endobj
42 0 obj
<<
/Type /FontDescriptor
/FontName /Symbol
/Flags 4
/FontBBox [ -180 -293 1090 1010 ]
/MissingWidth 250
/StemV 85.00
/StemH 42.50
/ItalicAngle 0.00
/CapHeight 0
/XHeight 0
/Ascent 0
/Descent 0
/Leading 0
/MaxWidth 0
/AvgWidth 0
>>
endobj
8 0 obj
<<
/Type /Font
/Subtype /Type1
/Name /F3
/BaseFont /Symbol
/FirstChar 0
/LastChar 255
/Widths [ 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250
250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250
250 333 713 500 549 833 778 439 333 333 500 549 250 549 250 278
500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 278 278 549 549 549 444
549 722 667 722 612 611 763 603 722 333 631 722 686 889 722 722
768 741 556 592 611 690 439 768 645 795 611 333 863 333 658 500
500 631 549 549 494 439 521 411 603 329 603 549 549 576 521 549
549 521 549 603 439 576 713 686 493 686 494 480 200 480 549 250
250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250
250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250
250 620 247 549 167 713 500 753 753 753 753 1042 987 603 987 603
400 549 411 549 549 713 494 460 549 549 549 549 1000 603 1000 658
823 686 795 987 768 768 823 768 768 713 713 713 713 713 713 713
768 713 790 250 250 250 549 250 713 603 603 1042 987 603 987 603
494 329 790 790 786 713 384 384 384 384 384 384 494 494 494 494
790 329 274 686 686 686 384 384 384 384 384 384 494 494 494 250 ]
/Encoding 41 0 R
/FontDescriptor 42 0 R
>>
endobj
43 0 obj
<<
/Type /Encoding
/Differences [ 219 /Zcaron 135 /ccedilla 152 /ydieresis 243 /atilde 140 /icircumflex
31 /threesuperior 136 /ecircumflex 146 /thorn 138 /egrave 30 /twosuperior 130 /eacute
254 /otilde 155 /Aacute 147 /ocircumflex 217 /yacute 129 /udieresis 247 /threequarters
131 /acircumflex 190 /Eth 137 /edieresis 151 /ugrave 223 /trademark 149 /ograve 215 /scaron
228 /Idieresis 218 /uacute 133 /agrave 210 /ntilde 134 /aring 220 /zcaron 226 /Icircumflex
209 /Ntilde 150 /ucircumflex 159 /Ecircumflex 224 /Iacute 128 /Ccedilla 153 /Odieresis
214 /Scaron 176 /Edieresis 229 /Igrave 132 /adieresis 236 /Ograve 181 /Egrave 242 /Ydieresis
221 /registered 237 /Otilde 244 /onequarter 240 /Ugrave 239 /Ucircumflex 145 /Thorn
25 /divide 158 /Atilde 238 /Uacute 231 /Ocircumflex 29 /logicalnot 143 /Aring 139 /idieresis
252 /iacute 160 /aacute 27 /plusminus 26 /multiply 154 /Udieresis 28 /minus 204 /onesuperior
144 /Eacute 156 /Acircumflex 222 /copyright 157 /Agrave 148 /odieresis 253 /oacute 127 /degree
141 /igrave 201 /mu 230 /Oacute 192 /eth 142 /Adieresis 216 /Yacute 255 /brokenbar 246 /onehalf
]
>>
endobj
44 0 obj
<<
/Type /FontDescriptor
/FontName /Times-Italic
/Flags 98
/FontBBox [ -169 -217 1010 883 ]
/MissingWidth 250
/StemV 76.00
/StemH 38.00
/ItalicAngle -15.50
/CapHeight 653
/XHeight 441
/Ascent 683
/Descent -205
/Leading 0
/MaxWidth 0
/AvgWidth 0
>>
endobj
9 0 obj
<<
/Type /Font
/Subtype /Type1
/Name /F4
/BaseFont /Times-Italic
/FirstChar 0
/LastChar 255
/Widths [ 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250
250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 675 675 675 675 675 300 300
250 333 420 500 500 833 778 333 333 333 500 675 250 333 250 278
500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 333 333 675 675 675 500
920 611 611 667 722 611 611 722 722 333 444 667 556 833 667 722
611 722 611 500 556 722 611 833 611 556 556 389 278 389 422 500
333 500 500 444 500 444 278 500 500 278 278 444 278 722 500 500
500 500 389 389 278 500 444 667 444 444 389 400 275 400 541 400
667 500 444 500 500 500 500 444 444 444 444 278 278 278 611 611
611 611 500 500 500 500 500 500 444 722 722 611 611 611 611 611
500 389 500 500 167 500 500 500 500 214 556 500 333 333 500 500
611 500 500 500 250 611 523 350 333 556 556 500 889 1000 722 500
500 333 333 333 333 333 333 333 333 500 333 333 300 333 333 333
889 667 500 250 250 250 500 389 556 444 500 556 389 760 760 980
333 889 333 276 333 333 722 722 556 722 944 310 722 722 722 722
722 667 556 500 750 278 750 750 278 500 667 500 278 500 500 275 ]
/Encoding 43 0 R
/FontDescriptor 44 0 R
>>
endobj
45 0 obj
<<
/Type /Encoding
/Differences [ 219 /Zcaron 135 /ccedilla 152 /ydieresis 243 /atilde 140 /icircumflex
31 /threesuperior 136 /ecircumflex 146 /thorn 138 /egrave 30 /twosuperior 130 /eacute
254 /otilde 155 /Aacute 147 /ocircumflex 217 /yacute 129 /udieresis 247 /threequarters
131 /acircumflex 190 /Eth 137 /edieresis 151 /ugrave 223 /trademark 149 /ograve 215 /scaron
228 /Idieresis 218 /uacute 133 /agrave 210 /ntilde 134 /aring 220 /zcaron 226 /Icircumflex
209 /Ntilde 150 /ucircumflex 159 /Ecircumflex 224 /Iacute 128 /Ccedilla 153 /Odieresis
214 /Scaron 176 /Edieresis 229 /Igrave 132 /adieresis 236 /Ograve 181 /Egrave 242 /Ydieresis
221 /registered 237 /Otilde 244 /onequarter 240 /Ugrave 239 /Ucircumflex 145 /Thorn
25 /divide 158 /Atilde 238 /Uacute 231 /Ocircumflex 29 /logicalnot 143 /Aring 139 /idieresis
252 /iacute 160 /aacute 27 /plusminus 26 /multiply 154 /Udieresis 28 /minus 204 /onesuperior
144 /Eacute 156 /Acircumflex 222 /copyright 157 /Agrave 148 /odieresis 253 /oacute 127 /degree
141 /igrave 201 /mu 230 /Oacute 192 /eth 142 /Adieresis 216 /Yacute 255 /brokenbar 246 /onehalf
]
>>
endobj
46 0 obj
<<
/Type /FontDescriptor
/FontName /Helvetica-Bold
/Flags 32
/FontBBox [ -170 -228 1003 962 ]
/MissingWidth 250
/StemV 140.00
/StemH 70.00
/ItalicAngle 0.00
/CapHeight 718
/XHeight 532
/Ascent 718
/Descent -207
/Leading 0
/MaxWidth 0
/AvgWidth 0
>>
endobj
17 0 obj
<<
/Type /Font
/Subtype /Type1
/Name /F5
/BaseFont /Helvetica-Bold
/FirstChar 0
/LastChar 255
/Widths [ 278 278 278 278 278 278 278 278 278 278 278 278 278 278 278 278
278 278 278 278 278 278 278 278 278 584 584 584 584 584 333 333
278 333 474 556 556 889 722 278 333 333 389 584 278 333 278 278
556 556 556 556 556 556 556 556 556 556 333 333 584 584 584 611
975 722 722 722 722 667 611 778 722 278 556 722 611 833 722 778
667 778 722 667 611 722 667 944 667 667 611 333 278 333 584 556
278 556 611 556 611 556 333 611 611 278 278 556 278 889 611 611
611 611 389 556 333 611 556 778 556 556 500 389 280 389 584 400
722 611 556 556 556 556 556 556 556 556 556 278 278 278 722 722
667 667 611 611 611 611 611 611 556 778 722 722 722 722 722 667
556 333 556 556 167 556 556 556 556 238 500 556 333 333 611 611
667 556 556 556 278 667 556 350 278 500 500 556 1000 1000 722 611
611 333 333 333 333 333 333 333 333 611 333 333 333 333 333 333
1000 722 611 278 278 278 667 556 667 556 611 611 500 737 737 1000
278 1000 278 370 278 278 778 778 611 778 1000 365 778 778 722 722
722 889 667 556 834 278 834 834 278 611 944 611 278 611 611 280 ]
/Encoding 45 0 R
/FontDescriptor 46 0 R
>>
endobj
10 0 obj
<<
/Kids [3 0 R 11 0 R 14 0 R 18 0 R 21 0 R 24 0 R]
/Count 6
/Type /Pages
/Parent 47 0 R
>>
endobj
30 0 obj
<<
/Kids [27 0 R 31 0 R 34 0 R]
/Count 3
/Type /Pages
/Parent 47 0 R
>>
endobj
47 0 obj
<<
/Kids [10 0 R 30 0 R]
/Count 9
/Type /Pages
/MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
>>
endobj
2 0 obj
<<
/Type /Catalog
/Pages 47 0 R
>>
endobj
48 0 obj
<<
/CreationDate (Thursday January 17, 2008 09:49:06)
/Creator (VERSACOMP R05.2)
/Producer (ECMP5)
>>
endobj
xref
0 49
0000000000 65535 f
0000034205 00000 n
0000046707 00000 n
0000003500 00000 n
0000000044 00000 n
0000003477 00000 n
0000035670 00000 n
0000038322 00000 n
0000039876 00000 n
0000042523 00000 n
0000046397 00000 n
0000006112 00000 n
0000003714 00000 n
0000006088 00000 n
0000010066 00000 n
0000006306 00000 n
0000010042 00000 n
0000045174 00000 n
0000013493 00000 n
0000010272 00000 n
0000013469 00000 n
0000018299 00000 n
0000013698 00000 n
0000018275 00000 n
0000023124 00000 n
0000018516 00000 n
0000023100 00000 n
0000027691 00000 n
0000023329 00000 n
0000027667 00000 n
0000046513 00000 n
0000032332 00000 n
0000027896 00000 n
0000032308 00000 n
0000034036 00000 n
0000032537 00000 n
0000034012 00000 n
0000034238 00000 n
0000035390 00000 n
0000036890 00000 n
0000038042 00000 n
0000039538 00000 n
0000039610 00000 n
0000041088 00000 n
0000042240 00000 n
0000043738 00000 n
0000044890 00000 n
0000046609 00000 n
0000046763 00000 n
trailer
<<
/Size 49
/Root 2 0 R
/Info 48 0 R
>>
startxref
46900
%%EOF
2 0 obj
<>
endobj
4 0 obj
<>stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 664.5 Tm
/F1 13 Tf 100 Tz
88.1395 -8.4 Td
1.3 Tw
0 Tc
(FOR PUBLICATION) Tj
/F1 15 Tf 100 Tz
-78.2395 -24 Td
1.5 Tw
(UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS) Tj
43.47 -16 Td
(FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
-53.37 -18 Td
1.2 Tw
() Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1.2 Tw
0 0 Td
183.8 0 Td
/F3 20 Tf 100 Tz
-2.18 -17.6 Td
2 Tw
() Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
-181.62 -2.8 Td
1.2 Tw
(R) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(OSS) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( A) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(TWOOD) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
(,) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
80.988 -13.2 Td
(Plaintiff-Appellant,) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
134.082 -6.6 Td
(No. 06-35299) Tj
-132.57 -11.4 Td
(v.) Tj
144.234 -6.6 Td
(D.C. No.) Tj
/F3 20 Tf 100 Tz
-45.114 -7.9 Td
2 Tw
() Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
-181.62 -3.5 Td
1.2 Tw
(F) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(ORT) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( P) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(ECK) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( T) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(RIBAL) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( C) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(OURT) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
202.332 -1.8 Td
1.2 Tw
(CV-05-00165-RFC) Tj
-202.332 -11.4 Td
(A) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(SSINIBOINE) Tj
2.12 Tw
( ) Tj
.79 Tw
(AND) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( S) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(IOUX) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( T) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(RIBES) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
(; and) Tj
224.34 -6.6 Td
(OPINION) Tj
-224.34 -6.6 Td
(L) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(INDA) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( L. F) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(LYNN) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( H) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(ANSON) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
(,) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
65.688 -13.2 Td
(Defendants-Appellees.) Tj
/F3 20 Tf 100 Tz
115.932 -8.8 Td
1.6 Ts
2 Tw
() Tj
0 Ts
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
-142.878 -26.2 Td
1.2 Tw
(Appeal from the United States District Court) Tj
44.202 -13.2 Td
(for the District of Montana) Tj
-40.944 -13.2 Td
(Richard F. Cebull, District Judge, Presiding) Tj
32.202 -26.2 Td
(Submitted November 6, 2007*) Tj
26.868 -13.2 Td
(Seattle, Washington) Tj
-7.866 -26.2 Td
(Filed January 18, 2008) Tj
-70.656 -26.2 Td
(Before: William) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1.2 Tw
(C.) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1.2 Tw
(Canby,) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1.2 Tw
(Jr., Susan) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1.2 Tw
(P.) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1.2 Tw
(Graber, and) Tj
45.684 -13.2 Td
(Ronald) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1.2 Tw
(M.) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1.2 Tw
(Gould, Circuit) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1.2 Tw
(Judges.) Tj
19.146 -26.2 Td
(Opinion by Judge Graber) Tj
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 156 664.5 cm
0 G
.9 w 0 -65.95 m 183.8 -65.95 l s
1.2 w 186.6 -116.9 m 186.6 -73.8 l s
1.2 w 186.6 -177 m 186.6 -133.9 l s
.9 w 0 -183.95 m 183.3 -183.95 l s
Q
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 189.7 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
148.5 -1 Td
1.2 Tw
0 Tc
() Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1.2 Tw
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
-138.5 -26 Td
1.7 Tw
(*The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without) Tj
-10 -11.2 Td
1 Tw
(oral argument. Fed. R. App. P. 34\(a\)\(2\). ) Tj
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 156 189.7 cm
0 G
.5 w 0 -12.75 m 300 -12.75 l s
Q
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
297.75 -664.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(691) Tj
ET
Q
endstream
endobj
12 0 obj
<>stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F1 12 Tf 100 Tz
120.996 -27.6 Td
1.2 Tw
0 Tc
(COUNSEL) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
-120.996 -26.2 Td
3.47 Tw
(J. Gregory Tomicich, Billings, Montana, for the plaintiff-) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
1.2 Tw
(appellant. ) Tj
0 -26.2 Td
.92 Tw
(Ryan C. Rusche, Poplar, Montana, and Carol C. Johns, Wolf) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
1.2 Tw
(Point, Montana, for the defendants-appellees.) Tj
/F1 12 Tf 100 Tz
123.666 -44.2 Td
(OPINION) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
-123.666 -26.2 Td
(GRABER, Circuit Judge: ) Tj
12 -26.2 Td
1.08 Tw
(This case involves a custody dispute concerning an Indian) Tj
-12 -13.2 Td
3.37 Tw
(child, Lexie. After the untimely death of Lexie's mother,) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
3.04 Tw
(Lexie's maternal aunt, Defendant Linda L. Flynn Hanson,) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
3.18 Tw
(sought custody through Defendant Fort Peck Tribal Court) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
.38 Tw
(\(Tribal Court) Tj
(\). The Tribal Court granted temporary custody) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
1 Tw
(to Lexie's maternal grandmother pending the outcome of the) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
4.1 Tw
(custody dispute. Lexie's non-Indian father, Plaintiff Ross) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
3.25 Tw
(Atwood, then brought this action in federal district court,) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
1.66 Tw
(challenging the jurisdiction of the Tribal Court and alleging) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
2.87 Tw
(a substantive due process violation. The district court dis-) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
1.53 Tw
(missed the case, relying on the domestic relations exception) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
3.66 Tw
(to subject matter jurisdiction and on Plaintiff's failure to) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
1.2 Tw
(exhaust tribal court remedies. ) Tj
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 cm
0 G
.5 w 0 -8.15 m 300 -8.15 l s
.5 w 0 -131.15 m 300 -131.15 l s
Q
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
439.5 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(693) Tj
-216.7937 0 Td
(A) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(TWOOD) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. F) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(ORT) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( P) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(ECK) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( T) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(RIBAL) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( C) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(OURT) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
15 0 obj
<>stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
12 -8.4 Td
.46 Tw
0 Tc
(We hold that the ) Tj
(domestic relations exception,) Tj
( a doctrine) Tj
-12 -13.3 Td
.51 Tw
(divesting the federal courts of jurisdiction, applies only to the) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
1.82 Tw
(diversity jurisdiction statute, 28 U.S.C. ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1.82 Tw
(1332, and that the) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
1 Tw
(district court erred by applying the domestic relations excep-) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
2 Tw
(tion because federal question jurisdiction exists in this case) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
2.14 Tw
(under 28 U.S.C. ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
2.14 Tw
(1331. We affirm the district court's dis-) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
1.9 Tw
(missal nonetheless, because Plaintiff failed to exhaust tribal) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
1.2 Tw
(court remedies.) Tj
37.038 -26.4 Td
(FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY) Tj
-25.038 -26.4 Td
2 Tw
(Plaintiff and Lexie's mother never married. In late 1997,) Tj
-12 -13.3 Td
1.9 Tw
(when Lexie was two years old, Plaintiff filed a petition for) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
.8 Tw
(custody in the Tribal Court. After a hearing, the Tribal Court) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
.71 Tw
(entered a custody agreement for Lexie on February 20, 1998.) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
.33 Tw
(That agreement granted the parents ) Tj
(joint legal custody of the) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
3.36 Tw
(child, with the Mother to have physical custody, and the) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
3.05 Tw
(Father having [specified visitation rights].) Tj
( The agreement) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
.76 Tw
(also stated that ) Tj
(the Fort Peck Tribal Court, Fort Peck Indian) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
.91 Tw
(Reservation shall continue to have jurisdiction over this mat-) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
1.2 Tw
(ter. ) Tj
12 -26.3 Td
3.03 Tw
(On July 16, 2005, Lexie's mother died, and Lexie was) Tj
-12 -13.3 Td
.03 Tw
(taken to stay with her maternal grandmother. Lexie's maternal) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
.04 Tw
(aunt, Defendant Hanson, thereafter petitioned the Tribal Court) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
3.03 Tw
(for custody of Lexie.) Tj
4.9 Ts
/F5 6 Tf 100 Tz
(1) Tj
0 Ts
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( On September 23, 2005, that court) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
3.22 Tw
(ordered that Lexie remain in the custody of her maternal) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
4.47 Tw
(grandmother pending the outcome of the petition. Lexie) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
.62 Tw
(remains in the physical custody of her maternal grandmother,) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
.14 Tw
(and the custody case remains pending before the Tribal Court.) Tj
12 -26.3 Td
3.36 Tw
(On October 7, 2005, two weeks after the Tribal Court) Tj
-12 -13.2 Td
.14 Tw
(issued its order, the Thirteenth Judicial District Court of Mon-) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
10 -26 Td
4.1 Ts
/F5 6 Tf 100 Tz
.69 Tw
(1) Tj
0 Ts
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
(The record is not entirely clear on the status \(Indian or non-Indian\) of) Tj
-10 -11.2 Td
.03 Tw
(Defendant Hanson and of Lexie's maternal grandmother. Determination of) Tj
0 -11.2 Td
.42 Tw
(those factual questions is unnecessary to the resolution of the issue before) Tj
0 -11.2 Td
1 Tw
(us. ) Tj
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 cm
0 G
.5 w 0 -444.15 m 300 -444.15 l s
Q
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
156 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(694) Tj
66.7063 0 Td
(A) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(TWOOD) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. F) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(ORT) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( P) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(ECK) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( T) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(RIBAL) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( C) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(OURT) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
19 0 obj
<>stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -8.4 Td
3.03 Tw
0 Tc
(tana granted immediate custody of Lexie to Plaintiff. The) Tj
0 -14.3 Td
.45 Tw
(state court's order shows that the state court was aware of the) Tj
0 -14.3 Td
1.62 Tw
(1998 custody agreement, but gives no indication that it was) Tj
0 -14.3 Td
2.44 Tw
(aware of the Tribal Court's recent order. According to the) Tj
0 -14.3 Td
.33 Tw
(federal district court in this case, ) Tj
([a]pparently, the Thirteenth) Tj
0 -14.3 Td
1.11 Tw
(Judicial District Court terminated enforcement upon learning) Tj
0 -14.3 Td
.5 Tw
(of the pending tribal court matter.) Tj
( The parties do not dispute) Tj
0 -14.3 Td
1.2 Tw
(that finding. ) Tj
12 -28.4 Td
1.3 Tw
(On December 29, 2005, Plaintiff filed a complaint in fed-) Tj
-12 -14.3 Td
4.37 Tw
(eral district court. The complaint alleges that the Tribal) Tj
0 -14.3 Td
.18 Tw
(Court's order violates his substantive due process right to par-) Tj
0 -14.3 Td
2.63 Tw
(ent his child and that Defendant Hanson lacks standing in) Tj
0 -14.3 Td
.28 Tw
(Tribal Court. Plaintiff sought injunctive relief, specifically, an) Tj
0 -14.3 Td
.53 Tw
(order requiring that Lexie's grandmother return Lexie to him,) Tj
0 -14.3 Td
2.73 Tw
(an order divesting the Tribal Court of jurisdiction, and an) Tj
0 -14.3 Td
.12 Tw
(award of custody. The complaint alleges both federal question) Tj
0 -14.3 Td
1.2 Tw
(jurisdiction and diversity jurisdiction. ) Tj
12 -28.3 Td
1.83 Tw
(On March 8, 2006, the district court granted Defendants') Tj
-12 -14.3 Td
1.4 Tw
(motion to dismiss the complaint. The district court held that) Tj
0 -14.3 Td
3.08 Tw
(the domestic relations exception divested it of jurisdiction) Tj
0 -14.3 Td
1.73 Tw
(and, in the alternative, that it would choose to abstain from) Tj
0 -14.3 Td
.4 Tw
(intervening in a domestic relations matter that was pending in) Tj
0 -14.2 Td
1.2 Tw
(a tribal court. Plaintiff timely appealed. ) Tj
82.14 -28.3 Td
(STANDARD OF REVIEW) Tj
-70.14 -28.3 Td
1.22 Tw
(We review de novo whether we have subject matter juris-) Tj
-12 -14.2 Td
.3 Tw
(diction. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Schnabel v. Lui) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 302 F.3d 1023, 1029 \(9th Cir. 2002\).) Tj
0 -14.2 Td
.55 Tw
(We also review de novo ) Tj
([w]hether exhaustion of tribal court) Tj
0 -14.2 Td
1.85 Tw
(remedies is required.) Tj
( ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Boozer v. Wilder) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 381 F.3d 931, 934) Tj
0 -14.2 Td
1.2 Tw
(\(9th Cir. 2004\).) Tj
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
439.5 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(695) Tj
-216.7937 0 Td
(A) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(TWOOD) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. F) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(ORT) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( P) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(ECK) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( T) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(RIBAL) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( C) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(OURT) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
22 0 obj
<>stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
114.666 -8.4 Td
1.2 Tw
0 Tc
(DISCUSSION) Tj
-103.666 -26.5 Td
8.06 Tw
(A.) Tj
9 Tw
( ) Tj
8.06 Tw
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Subject Matter Jurisdiction and the ) Tj
(Domestic) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1.2 Tw
(Relations Exception) Tj
( ) Tj
/F1 12 Tf 100 Tz
1 -26.4 Td
2.14 Tw
([1]) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( Plaintiff's complaint alleges that ) Tj
([t]he maternal aunt) Tj
-12 -13.4 Td
.2 Tw
(has no standing [in Tribal Court] to petition for custody of the) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
.8 Tw
(child) Tj
( and that the Tribal Court's order is ) Tj
(a substantive vio-) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
.44 Tw
(lation of Plaintiff's constitutional right to parent his child.) Tj
( In) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
(other words, Plaintiff alleges that ) Tj
(a tribal court has exceeded) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
.25 Tw
(the lawful limits of its jurisdiction.) Tj
( ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Nat'l Farmers Union Ins.) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
2.56 Tw
(Cos. v. Crow Tribe of Indians) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 471 U.S. 845, 853 \(1985\).) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
3.75 Tw
(Non-Indians may bring a federal common law cause of) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
.92 Tw
(action under 28 U.S.C. ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
.92 Tw
(1331 to challenge tribal court juris-) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
1.06 Tw
(diction. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Boozer) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 381 F.3d at 934 \(citing ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Nat'l Farmers) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 471) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
1.12 Tw
(U.S. at 850-53\). Federal courts therefore have subject matter) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
1.04 Tw
(jurisdiction under the federal question jurisdiction statute, 28) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
.55 Tw
(U.S.C. ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
.55 Tw
(1331, because the case arises under federal common) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
1.2 Tw
(law.) Tj
4.9 Ts
/F5 6 Tf 100 Tz
.5 Tw
(2) Tj
0 Ts
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
1.2 Tw
( ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Nat'l Farmers) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 471 U.S. at 853. ) Tj
/F1 12 Tf 100 Tz
12 -26.4 Td
3.17 Tw
([2]) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( Both in his complaint and before the district court,) Tj
-12 -13.3 Td
1.37 Tw
(Plaintiff asserted subject matter jurisdiction on two grounds:) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
1.08 Tw
(federal question jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1.08 Tw
(1331, and diversity) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
2.71 Tw
(jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
2.71 Tw
(1332. The district court expressly) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
.33 Tw
(declined to decide ) Tj
(whether this Court has federal question or) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
.42 Tw
(diversity jurisdiction) Tj
( and held that, regardless, the ) Tj
(domestic) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
5.71 Tw
(relations exception to federal jurisdiction) Tj
( applied. The) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
3.62 Tw
(Supreme Court has long recognized that, when the relief) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
4.18 Tw
(sought relates primarily to domestic relations, a doctrine) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
.75 Tw
(referred to as the domestic relations exception divests federal) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
1.93 Tw
(courts of jurisdiction. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(See, e.g.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(In re Burrus) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 136 U.S. 586) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
2.85 Tw
(\(1890\); ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Barber v. Barber) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 62 U.S. \(21 How.\) 582 \(1858\).) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
10 -26.2 Td
4.1 Ts
/F5 6 Tf 100 Tz
.22 Tw
(2) Tj
0 Ts
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
(Because we have subject matter jurisdiction under ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
.22 Tw
(1331, we need not) Tj
-10 -11.2 Td
2.34 Tw
(determine whether an alternative basis for jurisdiction also exists. ) Tj
/F4 10 Tf 100 Tz
(See) Tj
0 -11.2 Td
.55 Tw
(Boozer) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
(, 381 F.3d at 934 n.2 \(holding that jurisdiction exists under federal) Tj
0 -11.2 Td
1.26 Tw
(common law and declining to address the plaintiff's alternative jurisdic-) Tj
0 -11.2 Td
1 Tw
(tional theory\). ) Tj
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 cm
0 G
.5 w 0 -432.85 m 300 -432.85 l s
Q
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
156 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(696) Tj
66.7063 0 Td
(A) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(TWOOD) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. F) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(ORT) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( P) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(ECK) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( T) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(RIBAL) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( C) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(OURT) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
25 0 obj
<>stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -8.4 Td
.5 Tw
0 Tc
(Plaintiff argues that the domestic relations exception does not) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
1.78 Tw
(apply in this case, because subject matter jurisdiction exists) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
.37 Tw
(under the federal question jurisdiction statute, ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
.37 Tw
(1331, and the) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
3.75 Tw
(domestic relations exception applies only to the diversity) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
1.2 Tw
(jurisdiction statute, ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1.2 Tw
(1332. We agree. ) Tj
12 -26.7 Td
2.08 Tw
(The Supreme Court discussed the nature of the domestic) Tj
-12 -13.5 Td
.66 Tw
(relations exception at length in ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Ankenbrandt v. Richards) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 504) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
.1 Tw
(U.S. 689 \(1992\). The Court traced the history of the exception) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
.33 Tw
(and concluded, first, that the exception is not of constitutional) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
3.06 Tw
(dimension. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Id.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( at 695. That is, ) Tj
(the Constitution does not) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
1.47 Tw
(exclude domestic relations cases from the jurisdiction other-) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
1.2 Tw
(wise granted by statute to the federal courts.) Tj
( ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Id.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( ) Tj
12 -26.7 Td
1.66 Tw
(But, the Court held, the diversity jurisdiction statute does) Tj
-12 -13.5 Td
.47 Tw
(exclude such cases. In reasoning to that conclusion, the Court) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
.11 Tw
(examined the text and history of the diversity jurisdiction stat-) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
(ute. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Id.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( at 698. The Court held that the exception derived from) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
.66 Tw
(Congress' intent to exclude domestic relations cases from the) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
1.18 Tw
(predecessor to 28 U.S.C. ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1.18 Tw
(1332. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Id.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( at 700. When Congress) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
.9 Tw
(later amended the diversity statute, it meant to leave in place) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
2.78 Tw
(the domestic relations exception. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Id.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( at 700-01. The Court) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
.43 Tw
(concluded that, in cases falling within the scope of the excep-) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1.11 Tw
(tion to ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1.11 Tw
(1332, federal courts lack jurisdiction. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Id.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( at 701-03.) Tj
/F1 12 Tf 100 Tz
12 -26.6 Td
2.12 Tw
([3]) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( In sum, ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Ankenbrandt) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( held that the domestic relations) Tj
-12 -13.4 Td
1.37 Tw
(exception was not of constitutional dimension, but rested on) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1.14 Tw
(Congress' intent in enacting the ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(diversity) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( jurisdiction statute,) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
3.51 Tw
(28 U.S.C. ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
3.51 Tw
(1332. Although ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Ankenbrandt) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( did not address) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
.41 Tw
(whether the exception applies to the ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(federal question) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( jurisdic-) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1.5 Tw
(tion statute, 28 U.S.C. ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1.5 Tw
(1331, the Court's reasoning plainly) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1.9 Tw
(does not apply to that statute. We therefore join the Fourth) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
4.23 Tw
(and Fifth Circuits in holding that the domestic relations) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
.28 Tw
(exception applies only to the diversity jurisdiction statute. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(See) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
.7 Tw
(United States v. Bailey) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 115 F.3d 1222, 1231 \(5th Cir. 1997\);) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -13.4 Td
.96 Tw
(United States v. Johnson) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 114 F.3d 476, 481 \(4th Cir. 1997\);) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -13.4 Td
1.09 Tw
(see also ) Tj
(Flood v. Braaten) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 727 F.2d 303, 307 \(3d Cir. 1984\)) Tj
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
439.5 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(697) Tj
-216.7937 0 Td
(A) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(TWOOD) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. F) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(ORT) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( P) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(ECK) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( T) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(RIBAL) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( C) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(OURT) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
28 0 obj
<>stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -8.4 Td
2.58 Tw
0 Tc
(\(reaching the same conclusion in a case pre-dating ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Anken-) Tj
0 -13 Td
1.2 Tw
(brandt) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(\). ) Tj
12 -26 Td
1.81 Tw
(Our holding today is driven by the Supreme Court's rea-) Tj
-12 -13 Td
.36 Tw
(soning in ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Ankenbrandt) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, but it also is consistent with our cases) Tj
0 -13 Td
1.95 Tw
(pre-dating ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Ankenbrandt) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(See ) Tj
(Csibi v. Fustos) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 670 F.2d 134,) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.47 Tw
(136 n.4 \(9th Cir. 1982\) \() Tj
(Thus, domestic relations cases are) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.77 Tw
(within the Article III judicial power of the federal courts, but) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.55 Tw
(outside the power bestowed by Congress in the diversity stat-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
3.28 Tw
(ute.\). Of note, the First Circuit mistakenly identified the) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.69 Tw
(Ninth Circuit as the only circuit to hold the ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(opposite) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(: that the) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.42 Tw
(domestic relations exception applies to more than diversity) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.5 Tw
(actions. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(See ) Tj
(Mandel v. Town of Orleans) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 326 F.3d 267, 271) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.62 Tw
(& n.3 \(1st Cir. 2003\) \(citing ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Thompson v. Thompson) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 798) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.58 Tw
(F.2d 1547, 1558 \(9th Cir. 1986\) \(per curiam\)\). We disagree) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.03 Tw
(with the First Circuit's characterization of ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Thompson) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(. In that) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
(case, we looked to the policies underlying the domestic rela-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.16 Tw
(tions exception for guidance in answering a statutory interpre-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.43 Tw
(tation question; we did not apply the exception at all. 798) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.48 Tw
(F.2d at 1558. In any event, we clarify today that the domestic) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.14 Tw
(relations exception applies only to the diversity jurisdiction) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(statute. ) Tj
/F1 12 Tf 100 Tz
12 -26 Td
1.45 Tw
([4]) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( In conclusion, subject matter jurisdiction exists in this) Tj
-12 -13.1 Td
2.5 Tw
(case under ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
2.5 Tw
(1331 and federal common law. The domestic) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(relations exception does not apply. ) Tj
11 -26 Td
(B.) Tj
9 Tw
( ) Tj
1.2 Tw
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Exhaustion of Tribal Court Remedies) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( ) Tj
/F1 12 Tf 100 Tz
1 -26 Td
1.3 Tw
([5]) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( In dismissing the case, the district court also relied on) Tj
-12 -13.1 Td
.66 Tw
(the fact that Plaintiff had not exhausted tribal court remedies.) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.96 Tw
(Under the doctrine of exhaustion of tribal court remedies,) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
0 Tw
(relief may not be sought in federal court until appellate review) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.48 Tw
(of a pending matter in a tribal court is complete. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Iowa Mut.) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.93 Tw
(Ins. Co. v. LaPlante) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 480 U.S. 9, 17 \(1987\); ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(see also ) Tj
(Nat'l) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.66 Tw
(Farmers) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 471 U.S. at 856-57 \(applying the doctrine\); ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Boozer) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(,) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.93 Tw
(381 F.3d at 935-37 \(same\). ) Tj
([T]he exhaustion rule . . . [i]s) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
3.33 Tw
(`prudential,' not jurisdictional.) Tj
( ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Strate v. A-1 Contractors) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(,) Tj
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
156 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(698) Tj
66.7063 0 Td
(A) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(TWOOD) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. F) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(ORT) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( P) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(ECK) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( T) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(RIBAL) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( C) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(OURT) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
32 0 obj
<>stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -8.4 Td
.48 Tw
0 Tc
(520 U.S. 438, 451 \(1997\). As a matter of discretion, a district) Tj
0 -13 Td
2.45 Tw
(court may either dismiss a case or stay the action while a) Tj
0 -13 Td
2.33 Tw
(tribal court handles the matter. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Nat'l Farmers) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 471 U.S. at) Tj
0 -13 Td
.63 Tw
(857. Because the parties do not dispute that the custody issue) Tj
0 -13 Td
.16 Tw
(is still pending before the Tribal Court, the district court prop-) Tj
0 -13 Td
2.33 Tw
(erly exercised its discretion and dismissed this case due to) Tj
0 -13 Td
1.2 Tw
(Plaintiff's failure to exhaust tribal court remedies. ) Tj
12 -26 Td
.32 Tw
(Although the Supreme Court has crafted narrow exceptions) Tj
-12 -13 Td
1.27 Tw
(to the exhaustion rule, none applies here. There has been no) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.81 Tw
(showing that Defendant Hanson asserted tribal jurisdiction in) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.11 Tw
(bad faith or that she acted to harass Plaintiff. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Nevada v. Hicks) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(,) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.72 Tw
(533 U.S. 353, 369 \(2001\). Nor can it be said that requiring) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.96 Tw
(exhaustion in this case ) Tj
(would serve no purpose other than) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(delay. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Id.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( \(internal quotation marks omitted\). ) Tj
12 -26 Td
.16 Tw
(Finally, it is not ) Tj
(plain) Tj
( that tribal court jurisdiction is lack-) Tj
-12 -13.1 Td
1.27 Tw
(ing. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Id.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( \(citing ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Strate) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 471 U.S. at 459-60 & n.14\). We have) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.57 Tw
(equated that inquiry with whether jurisdiction is ) Tj
(colorable) Tj
() Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.25 Tw
(or ) Tj
(plausible.) Tj
( ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Allstate Indem. Co. v. Stump) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 191 F.3d 1071,) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.53 Tw
(1075-76 \(9th Cir. 1999\). Here, tribal court jurisdiction almost) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.52 Tw
(certainly is proper and therefore unquestionably is ) Tj
(plausi-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.47 Tw
(ble. First, the 1998 custody agreement \(the validity of which) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.25 Tw
(Plaintiff does not challenge\) states that the Tribal Court ) Tj
(shall) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.41 Tw
(continue to have jurisdiction over this matter.) Tj
( Second, Plain-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.14 Tw
(tiff availed himself of that forum voluntarily when the origi-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
4.83 Tw
(nal custody dispute arose in 1997, which is at least a) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
3.32 Tw
(colorable basis for jurisdiction, even though the current) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.93 Tw
(tribal court case was not initiated by Plaintiff. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(See ) Tj
(Smith v.) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.81 Tw
(Salish Kootenai Coll.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 434 F.3d 1127, 1140 \(9th Cir.\) \(en) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.58 Tw
(banc\) \() Tj
(We hold that a nonmember who knowingly enters) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
3.06 Tw
(tribal courts for the purpose of filing suit against a tribal) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.2 Tw
(member has, by the act of filing his claims, entered into a) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.37 Tw
(`consensual relationship' with the tribe . . . .) Tj
(\), ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(cert. denied) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(,) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.87 Tw
(126 S.) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
2.87 Tw
(Ct. 2893 \(2006\). Third, the suit primarily concerns) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.48 Tw
(Lexie, who ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(is) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( a member of the tribe. Although the rights of) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.57 Tw
(non-member Plaintiff are affected, it is not clear that that fact) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(alone would strip the Tribal Court of jurisdiction.) Tj
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
439.5 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(699) Tj
-216.7937 0 Td
(A) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(TWOOD) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. F) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(ORT) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( P) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(ECK) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( T) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(RIBAL) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( C) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(OURT) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
35 0 obj
<>stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
111.336 -8.4 Td
1.2 Tw
0 Tc
(CONCLUSION) Tj
-99.336 -26.2 Td
.82 Tw
(We hold that the domestic relations exception applies only) Tj
-12 -13.2 Td
.07 Tw
(to the diversity jurisdiction statute, 28 U.S.C. ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
.07 Tw
(1332. Because) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
1.15 Tw
(federal courts have jurisdiction in this case under the federal) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
2.98 Tw
(question jurisdiction statute, 28 U.S.C. ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
2.98 Tw
(1331, the district) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
3.81 Tw
(court erred by applying the domestic relations exception.) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
2.12 Tw
(Nonetheless, we affirm the district court's dismissal of this) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
.41 Tw
(case because Plaintiff has not exhausted his tribal court reme-) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
1.2 Tw
(dies. ) Tj
12 -26.2 Td
(AFFIRMED. ) Tj
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
156 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(700) Tj
66.7063 0 Td
(A) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(TWOOD) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. F) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(ORT) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( P) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(ECK) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( T) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(RIBAL) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( C) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(OURT) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
49 0 obj
<>
endobj
50 0 obj
<>stream
Thursday January 17, 2008 09:49:06
ECMP5
VERSACOMP R05.2
2008-01-29T12:56:58-07:00
2008-01-29T12:56:58-07:00
2008-01-29T12:56:58-07:00
application/pdf
Ross Atwood v. Fort Peck Tribal Court Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes (Opinion)
uuid:dc2105e8-081f-4cad-aa00-8bdd2f132f01
uuid:2ec1c6de-2bc4-4bdf-873d-e281a1036d9c
endstream
endobj
xref
2 1
0000047971 00000 n
4 1
0000048033 00000 n
12 1
0000051458 00000 n
15 1
0000053823 00000 n
19 1
0000057550 00000 n
22 1
0000060738 00000 n
25 1
0000065306 00000 n
28 1
0000069881 00000 n
32 1
0000074210 00000 n
35 1
0000078613 00000 n
49 2
0000080079 00000 n
0000080364 00000 n
trailer
<]/Prev 46900 >>
startxref
84147
%%EOF
50 0 obj
<>stream
Thursday January 17, 2008 09:49:06
ECMP5
VERSACOMP R05.2
2008-05-13T14:45:12-06:00
2008-01-29T12:56:58-07:00
2008-05-13T14:45:12-06:00
application/pdf
Ross Atwood v. Fort Peck Tribal Court Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes
uuid:dc2105e8-081f-4cad-aa00-8bdd2f132f01
uuid:3772604a-17ed-4602-b6ab-0795e1948abe
endstream
endobj
51 0 obj
<>
endobj
xref
50 2
0000084613 00000 n
0000088386 00000 n
trailer
<<4C56DDD4325DA345A51D547AEF26400F>]/Prev 84147 >>
startxref
88659
%%EOF