Stops v. Bull Tail et al

Filing 12

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS re 1 Complaint, filed by Alan Craig Stops. Plaintiff's Complaint should be DISMISSED for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Objections to F&R due by 3/2/2009. Signed by Magistrate Carolyn S Ostby on 2/10/2009. Copy mailed to Stops. (TAG, ) Modified on 2/11/2009 to reflect that a copy was mailed to Joseph and Clara Bulltail. (ASG, ).

Download PDF
THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA BILLINGS DIVISION _____________________________________________ ALAN CRAIG STOPS, Plaintiff, vs. JOSEPH BULL TAIL, et. al., Defendants. _____________________________________________ On September 30, 2008, this Court issued an Order directing Plaintiff to show cause why this matter should not be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. (Court's Doc. No. 11).1 Plaintiff did not respond. Accordingly, for the reasons set forth in the Court's Order of September 30, 2008, the Court issues the following: Plaintiff's allegations arose out of a custody matter involving Plaintiff's two children. Federal district courts do not have jurisdiction to review the judicial actions of tribal courts, including child custody decisions. See DeMent v. Oglala Sioux Tribal Court, 874 F.2d 510, 514 (8th Cir. 1989); LaBeau v. Dakota, 815 F.Supp. 1074 (W.D.Mich. 1993) citing Shelifoe v. Dakota, 966 F.2d 1454 (6th Cir. 1992) (unpublished disposition); Sandman v. Dakota, 816 F.Supp. 448 (W.D.Mich. 1992). FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE TO DISMISS COMPLAINT - CV-08-049-BLG-RFC-CSO / PAGE 1 1 Cause No. CV 08-049-BLG-RFC-CSO FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE TO DISMISS COMPLAINT RECOMMENDATION 1. Plaintiff's Complaint should be DISMISSED for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. 2. The Clerk of Court should be directed to close this matter and enter judgment pursuant to Rule 58 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 3. At all times during the pendency of this action, Plaintiff SHALL IMMEDIATELY ADVISE the Court of any change of address and its effective date. Such notice shall be captioned "NOTICE OF CHANGE OF ADDRESS." The notice shall contain only information pertaining to the change of address and its effective date, the notice should so indicate. The notice shall not include any motions for any other relief. Failure to file a NOTICE OF CHANGE OF ADDRESS may result in the dismissal of the action for failure to prosecute pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b). NOTICE OF RIGHT TO OBJECT TO FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATION AND CONSEQUENCES OF FAILURE TO OBJECT Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1), the parties may serve and file written objections to this Findings and Recommendation within ten (10) business days of the date entered as indicated on the Notice of Electronic FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE TO DISMISS COMPLAINT - CV-08-049-BLG-RFC-CSO / PAGE 2 Filing. Any such filing should be captioned "Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendation." A district judge will make a de novo determination of those portions of the Findings and Recommendation to which objection is made. The district judge may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the Findings and Recommendation. Failure to timely file written objections may bar a de novo determination by the district judge and may waive the right to appeal the District Court's order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). This Recommendation is not an order that is immediately appealable to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Any notice of appeal pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(a)(1), should not be filed until entry of the District Court's final judgment. DATED this 10th day of February, 2009. /s/ Carolyn S. Ostby Carolyn S. Ostby United States Magistrate Judge FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE TO DISMISS COMPLAINT - CV-08-049-BLG-RFC-CSO / PAGE 3

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?