Spencer v. Lewis

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: July 18, 2025
• Docket: 23-3784
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 18 2025 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

KYLE R. SPENCER, No. 23-3784 D.C. No. Plaintiff - Appellant, 2:22-cv-00297-SAB v. MEMORANDUM* GERALD LEWIS, Yakama Tribal Council Chairman; GEORGE MENINICK Sr., Yakama Tribal Council Vice- Chairman; CHARLENE TILLEQUOTS, Yakama Tribal Council Secretary; CHRISTOPHER WALLAHEE, Yakama Tribal Council Asst Secretary; TERRY HEEMSAH Sr., Yakama Tribal Council Sergeant-At- Arms; JEREMEY TAKALA, Yakama Tribal Council Law and Order Chairman; RUTH JIM, Yakama Tribal Council Law and Order Secretary; DELAND OLNEY, Yakama Tribal Council Law and Order Member; TERRY GOUDY-RAMBLER, Yakama Tribal Council Law and Order Member; PHILIP RIGDON, Yakama Tribal Agency Tribal Administrative Director; TAMARA SALUSKIN, Yakama Tribal Court Justice Services Deputy Director; RONNA WASHINES, Yakama Tribal Court Chief Judge; TED STRONG,

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. Yakama Tribal Court Tribal Judge; ALYSSA BUCK-WRIGHT, Yakama Tribal Court Associate Judge; TUCELIA PALMER, Yakama Tribal Court Associate Judge; MARY WAHPAT, Yakama Tribal Court Associate Judge; ANTHONY GEORGE, Jr., Yakama Tribal Court Associate Judge,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington Stanley Allen Bastian, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted July 14, 2025**

Before: HAWKINS, S.R. THOMAS, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.

Kyle Spencer appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing

his action against various Yakama Nation Tribal Council Members, Yakama

Nation Tribal Court judges, and Yakama Nation employees as barred by tribal

sovereign immunity and absolute judicial immunity. “We review issues of tribal

sovereign immunity and personal immunity de novo.” Acres Bonusing, Inc. v.

Marston, 17 F.4th 901, 907 (9th Cir. 2021). We affirm.

“Suits against Indian tribes are . . . barred by sovereign immunity absent a

clear waiver by the tribe or congressional abrogation.” Id. (quoting Okla. Tax

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

2 23-3784 Comm’n v. Citizen Band Potawatomi Indian Tribe, 498 U.S. 505, 509 (1991)).

Tribal sovereign immunity extends to tribal officials and employees acting in their

official capacity and within the scope of their authority. Cook v. AVI Casino

Enterprises, Inc., 548 F.3d 718, 727 (9th Cir. 2008). In such cases, the tribe is the

“real, substantial party in interest . . . even though individual officials are nominal

defendants.” Id. (quoting Regents of the Univ. of Cal. v. Doe, 519 U.S. 425, 429

(1997)). To determine the real party in interest, “courts may not simply rely on the

characterization of the parties in the complaint, but rather must determine in the

first instance whether the remedy sought is truly against the sovereign.” Lewis v.

Clarke, 581 U.S. 155, 162 (2017).

Here, the remedies Spencer seeks make clear that the Yakama Nation is the

real, substantial party in interest and thus that the defendants are entitled to

sovereign immunity. For example, he asks that the court declare the Yakama

Nation and its tribal courts lack jurisdiction over him, enjoin the Yakama Nation

from interfering with his parental rights, order all cases involving him in the tribal

court dismissed, and award him three million dollars in damages. These remedies

explicitly operate against the tribe rather than any individual defendants.

Spencer’s claim for damages cannot proceed because “[s]uits that seek to

recover funds from tribal coffers . . . are barred by tribal sovereign immunity even

when nominally styled as against individual officers.” Jamul Action Comm. v.

3 23-3784 Simermeyer, 974 F.3d 984, 994 (9th Cir. 2020). The defendants who are active

Yakama Nation Tribal Court judges are also protected from suits for monetary

damages by absolute judicial immunity. Acres Bonusing, Inc., 17 F.4th at 915.

Spencer’s claims for declaratory and injunctive relief are also barred because

he has not set forth any facts that indicate his case falls under the limited Ex parte

Young, 209 U.S. 123 (1908) exception to sovereign immunity. The Ex parte

Young doctrine allows suits for prospective injunctive or declaratory relief against

tribal officials in their official capacity to prevent an ongoing violation of federal

law. Jamul Action Comm., 974 F.3d at 994. Spencer has not “point[ed] to

threatened or ongoing unlawful conduct by a particular government officer.” Id.

To the degree he alleges that the Yakama Nation Tribal Court and particular judges

lacked jurisdiction over him in child custody proceedings, Spencer has not alleged

a violation of federal common law because tribes “retain their inherent power . . .

to regulate domestic relations among members,” and Spencer was a member of the

Yakama Nation at the time of these proceedings. Montana v. United States, 450

U.S. 544, 564 (1981); cf. Salt River Project Agric. Improvement and Power Dist. v.

Lee, 672 F.3d 1176, 1182 (9th Cir. 2012) (noting “it is well-settled that federal

common law circumscribes a tribe’s inherent authority to regulate non-members”

(emphasis added)).

Accordingly, the district court did not err in dismissing Spencer’s complaint

4 23-3784 for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

AFFIRMED.

5 23-3784