Acres v. Blue Lake Rancheria et al

Filing 54

Order by Hon. William H. Orrick denying 53 Motion for TRO. (jmdS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/28/2017)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

JAMES RAYMOND ACRES,
Plaintiff,

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

Case No. 16-cv-05391-WHO
ORDER DENYING TEMPORARY
RESTRAINING ORDER

v.
BLUE LAKE RANCHERIA, et al.,

Re: Dkt. No. 53

Defendants.
Plaintiff James Acres sought a determination, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, that the Blue

13

Lake Rancheria Tribal Court lacks jurisdiction over him in a contract dispute proceeding in Tribal

14

Court. Dkt. No. 1. On February 24, 2017, I dismissed that claim because Acres failed to exhaust

15

tribal remedies as required by considerations of comity and binding precedent. See Dkt. No. 50;

16

National Farmers Union Ins. Cos. V. Crow Tribe, 471 U.S. 845, 857 (1985) (holding that district

17

courts must decline jurisdiction to hear § 1331 claims “until after the Tribal Court has had a full

18

opportunity to determine its own jurisdiction.”) . Acres now applies for a Temporary Restraining

19

Order against the Blue Lake Rancheria Tribal Court, seeking to enjoin the proceedings in his

20

underlying Tribal Court case pending appeal of my dismissal Order. Dkt. No. 53.

21

Because my February 24, 2016 Order was an unconditional dismissal of this case, I retain

22

no jurisdiction over the matter. See O’Connor v. Colvin, 70 F.3d 530, 532 (9th Cir. 1995) (“When

23

the initial action is dismissed, federal jurisdiction terminates.”). I therefore lack the authority to

24

grant Acres’s requested relief. Acres cites to Natural Resources Defense Council Inc. v.

25

Southwest Marine Inc., 242 F.3d 1163, 1166 (9th Cir. 2001), for the proposition that “[t]he district

26

court retains jurisdiction during the pendency of an appeal to act to preserve the status quo.” But

27

that case is inapplicable because there the district court had not dismissed the action and thus had

28

not terminated federal jurisdiction. Id.

1

Even if I retained jurisdiction over this matter, the same considerations of comity that

2

required me to dismiss Acres’s claim would prohibit me from issuing the requested relief. As

3

comity requires that I grant the Tribal Court a full and fair opportunity to determine its own

4

jurisdiction, it also prohibits me from enjoining the Tribal Court from proceeding with such a

5

determination.

6

As this court lacks jurisdiction to grant the Temporary Restraining Order Acres requests,

7

and because such an order would violate the same principles of comity that required this case’s

8

dismissal in the first instance, Acres’s application is DENIED.

9
10

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: March 28, 2017

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
William H. Orrick
United States District Judge

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2