Richard Neal v. State of Arizona

Ninth Circuit

Richard Neal v. State of Arizona

436 F. App'x 811

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedJune 8, 2011

Docket10-15364

StatusUnpublished

This text of 436 F. App'x 811 (Richard Neal v. State of Arizona) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Richard Neal v. State of Arizona, 436 F. App'x 811 (9th Cir. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Richard Leland Neal and Rex Carl Sagely (“plaintiffs”) appeal pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing their action alleging that defendants unlawfully refused to recognize as valid for use in Arizona their purported Indian tribe-issued driver’s licenses, vehicle registrations, and vehicle titles. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Rhoades v. Avon Prods., Inc., 504 F.3d 1151, 1156 (9th Cir.2007). We may affirm on any ground supported by the record, Thompson v. Paul, 547 F.3d 1055, 1058-59 (9th Cir.2008), and we affirm.

Dismissal of plaintiffs’ Indian tribal sovereignty and Indian Commerce Clause claims was proper because the group whose purported rights plaintiffs are asserting is not an Indian tribe or band. See Kahawaiolaa v. Norton, 386 F.3d 1271, 1272-74 (9th Cir.2004) (recognizing that members of a tribe are of a same or similar race); Navajo Tribal Utility Auth. v. Aria. Dep’t of Revenue, 608 F.2d 1228, 1231-32 (9th Cir.1979) (“Indian tribes or bands are separate communities of citizens of Indian descent, possibly with a common racial origin, possessing the power of a sovereign to regulate their internal and social relations.”); see also Crow Tribe of Indians v. Montana, 650 F.2d 1104, 1108-10 (9th Cir.1981) (discussing tribal sovereignty claims), amended on denial of reh’g, 665 F.2d 1390 (9th Cir.1982). Plaintiffs’ treaty-based claims also fail. See Skokomish Indian Tribe v. United States, 410 F.3d 506, 512, 515-16 (9th Cir.2005) (en banc) (addressing treaty-based claims).

Dismissal of plaintiffs’ equal protection claims was proper because their group is not situated similarly to governmental entities that issue driver licenses, vehicle registrations, and vehicle titles. See Thornton v. City of St. Helens, 425 F.3d 1158, 1167-68 (9th Cir.2005). Plaintiffs’ due process claims also fail. See Miller v. Reed, 176 F.3d 1202, 1205-06 (9th Cir.1999) (holding no constitutional right to drive).

Plaintiffs’ remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

AFFIRMED.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

MEMORANDUM **

Richard Leland Neal and Rex Carl Sagely (“plaintiffs”) appeal pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing their action alleging that defendants unlawfully refused to recognize as valid for use in Arizona their purported Indian tribe-issued driver’s licenses, vehicle registrations, and vehicle titles. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Rhoades v. Avon Prods., Inc., 504 F.3d 1151, 1156 (9th Cir.2007). We may affirm on any ground supported by the record, Thompson v. Paul, 547 F.3d 1055, 1058-59 (9th Cir.2008), and we affirm.

Dismissal of plaintiffs’ Indian tribal sovereignty and Indian Commerce Clause claims was proper because the group whose purported rights plaintiffs are asserting is not an Indian tribe or band. See Kahawaiolaa v. Norton, 386 F.3d 1271, 1272-74 (9th Cir.2004) (recognizing that members of a tribe are of a same or similar race); Navajo Tribal Utility Auth. v. Aria. Dep’t of Revenue, 608 F.2d 1228, 1231-32 (9th Cir.1979) (“Indian tribes or bands are separate communities of citizens of Indian descent, possibly with a common racial origin, possessing the power of a sovereign to regulate their internal and social relations.”); see also Crow Tribe of Indians v. Montana, 650 F.2d 1104, 1108-10 (9th Cir.1981) (discussing tribal sovereignty claims), amended on denial of reh’g, 665 F.2d 1390 (9th Cir.1982). Plaintiffs’ treaty-based claims also fail. See Skokomish Indian Tribe v. United States, 410 F.3d 506, 512, 515-16 (9th Cir.2005) (en banc) (addressing treaty-based claims).

Dismissal of plaintiffs’ equal protection claims was proper because their group is not situated similarly to governmental entities that issue driver licenses, vehicle registrations, and vehicle titles. See Thornton v. City of St. Helens, 425 F.3d 1158, 1167-68 (9th Cir.2005). Plaintiffs’ due process claims also fail. See Miller v. Reed, 176 F.3d 1202, 1205-06 (9th Cir.1999) (holding no constitutional right to drive).

Plaintiffs’ remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

AFFIRMED.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Skokomish Indian Tribe, a Federally Recognized Indian Tribe in Its Own Capacity as a Class Representative and as Parens Patriae Denny S. Hurtado Gordon A. James Joseph Pavel Anne Pavel Maures P. Tinaza Celeste F. Vigil Roslynne L. Reed Gary W. Peterson Rita C. Andrews Tom G. Strong Marie E. Gouley Victoria J. Pavel Dennis W. Allen Joseph Andrews, Sr. Zetha Cush Elsie M. Allen Alex L. Gouley, Jr. Lawrence L. Kenyon Doris Miller Gerald B. Miller Helen M. Rudy Ronald D. Twiddy, Sr. Nick G. Wilbur, Sr. v. United States of America Tacoma Public Utilities, a Washington Municipal Corporation City of Tacoma, a Washington Municipal Corporation William Barker, Tacoma Public Utilities Board Member in His Official Capacity Tom Hilyard, Tacoma Public Utilities Board Member in His Official Capacity Robert Lane Tim Strege G.E. Vaughn, Skokomish Indian Tribe, a Federally Recognized Indian Tribe in Its Own Capacity as a Class Representative and as Parens Patriae Denny S. Hurtado Gordon A. James Joseph Pavel Anne Pavel Maures P. Tinaza Celeste F. Vigil Roslynne L. Reed Gary W. Peterson Rita C. Andrews Tom G. Strong Marie E. Gouley Victoria J. Pavel Dennis W. Allen Joseph Andrews, Sr. Zetha Cush Elsie M. Allen Alex L. Gouley, Jr. Lawrence L. Kenyon Doris Miller Gerald B. Miller Helen M. Rudy Ronald D. Twiddy, Sr. Nick G. Wilbur, Sr., Skokomish Indian Tribal Members for Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated v. Tacoma Public Utilities, a Washington Municipal Corporation City of Tacoma, a Washington Municipal Corporation William Barker, Tacoma Public Utilities Board Member in His Official Capacity Tom Hilyard, Tacoma Public Utilities Board Member in His Official Capacity Robert Lane Tim Strege G.E. Vaughn United States Internal Revenue Service

410 F.3d 506 (Ninth Circuit, 2005)

Ralph E. Thornton Cheryl A. Thornton v. City of St. Helens Warren Baker Brian Little

425 F.3d 1158 (Ninth Circuit, 2005)

Thompson v. Paul

547 F.3d 1055 (Ninth Circuit, 2008)

Rhoades v. Avon Products, Inc.

504 F.3d 1151 (Ninth Circuit, 2007)

Miller v. Reed

176 F.3d 1202 (Ninth Circuit, 1999)

Kahawaiolaa v. Norton

386 F.3d 1271 (Ninth Circuit, 2004)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

436 F. App'x 811, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/richard-neal-v-state-of-arizona-ca9-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack