Gardner v. Ute Tribal Court of the Uintah and Ouray

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
• Decided: March 24, 2026
• Docket: 25-4077
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

Appellate Case: 25-4077 Document: 34-1 Date Filed: 03/24/2026 Page: 1 FILED United States Court of Appeals UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT March 24, 2026 _________________________________ Christopher M. Wolpert Clerk of Court LYNDA GARDNER; KANDRA AMBOH,

Plaintiffs - Appellants,

v. No. 25-4077 (D.C. No. 2:25-CV-00106-DBB) UTE TRIBAL COURT OF THE UINTAH (D. Utah) AND OURAY RESERVATION; JEFFREY KURTZ; JEFF S. RASMUSSEN,

Defendants - Appellees. _________________________________

ORDER AND JUDGMENT * _________________________________

Before TYMKOVICH, BALDOCK, and MORITZ, Circuit Judges. _________________________________

Kandra Amboh faced criminal charges in the Ute Indian Tribal Court of the

Uintah and Ouray Reservation in Utah (UITC). She and Lynda Gardner, who

previously was an authorized lay advocate before the UITC, filed a complaint in

federal district court under 25 U.S.C. § 1303, which provides that “[t]he privilege of

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined *

unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1. Appellate Case: 25-4077 Document: 34-1 Date Filed: 03/24/2026 Page: 2

the writ of habeas corpus shall be available to any person, in a court of the United

States, to test the legality of his detention by order of an Indian tribe.” Plaintiffs later

tried to remove the criminal proceeding against Ms. Amboh from the UITC to the

district court and filed numerous other motions in the district court.

The magistrate judge concluded that Plaintiffs had not properly removed the

criminal case, the record contradicted Plaintiffs’ claims the UITC was violating

Ms. Amboh’s rights, and Plaintiffs’ motions were meritless. He therefore

recommended that the district court deny the motions, dismiss the case, and remand

to the UITC. The district court adopted the report and recommendation and entered a

judgment dismissing the complaint and closing the case.

Defendants argue we lack jurisdiction over this appeal because (1) 28 U.S.C.

§ 1447(d) bars review of “[a]n order remanding a case to the State court from which

it was removed,” and (2) Ms. Amboh went to trial before the UITC and was found

not guilty on all charges, mooting this matter. Because we agree with the latter point,

we need not consider the first. See Sinochem Int’l Co. v. Malay. Int’l Shipping Corp.,

549 U.S. 422, 431 (2007) (explaining that “there is no mandatory sequencing of

jurisdictional issues” (internal quotation marks omitted)).

“Mootness is a threshold issue because the existence of a live case or

controversy is a constitutional prerequisite to federal court jurisdiction.” Ind v. Colo.

Dep’t of Corr., 801 F.3d 1209, 1213 (10th Cir. 2015) (internal quotation marks

omitted). “[T]he crucial question is whether granting a present determination of the

issues offered will have some effect in the real world. When it becomes impossible

2 Appellate Case: 25-4077 Document: 34-1 Date Filed: 03/24/2026 Page: 3

for a court to grant effective relief, a live controversy ceases to exist, and the case

becomes moot.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). Mootness “can be raised at

any stage of the proceedings.” Id.

Plaintiffs’ complaint alleged Ms. Amboh was suffering violations of her rights

in the then-pending prosecution before the UITC. But Ms. Amboh was found not

guilty of the tribal charges shortly before the district court entered its judgment in

this case. At that point, the tribal prosecution no longer was pending, and there was

no criminal judgment against Ms. Amboh. She cannot be retried on the charges.

See 25 U.S.C. § 1302(a)(3) (precluding a tribe from “subject[ing] any person for the

same offense to be twice put in jeopardy”). In these circumstances, the federal courts

can grant no effective relief. This matter is moot.

We remand to the district court with instructions to vacate its judgment and

dismiss this suit without prejudice. See Brown v. Buhman, 822 F.3d 1151, 1179

(10th Cir. 2016). We deny Defendants’ request to impose filing restrictions on

Ms. Gardner, but we caution her that any future frivolous filings may subject her to

sanctions, including filing restrictions.

Entered for the Court

Bobby R. Baldock Circuit Judge