Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Rumsey Indian Rancheria of Wintun Indians v. Wilson
99 F.3d 321
- Type
- Opinion
- Court
- Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
- Date
- 1996-10-29
- Topic
- general
By order dated December 5, 1995 this panel construed appellees’ letter briefs of August 28, 1995 as a renewed petition for rehearing in light of a California appellate court decision. We deferred consideration of the petition pending the decision by the California Supreme Court in that ease, Western Telcon v. California State Lottery, 13 Cal.4th 475, 53 Cal.Rptr.2d 812, 917 P.2d 651 (1996). The California Court has issued its opinion and the parties have filed additional letter briefs on the impact of Western Telcon on our decision in this matter. We have considered the arguments of the parties and are not persuaded that the decision in Western Telcon has any impact on our decision in Rumsey.
Citator
UpLaw has not yet analyzed Rumsey Indian Rancheria of Wintun Indians v. Wilson. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.
- Cited by
- 8 opinions
RUMSEY INDIAN RANCHERIA OF WINTUN I. v. WILSON,99 F.3d 321(9th Cir. 1996)
RUMSEY INDIAN RANCHERIA OF WINTUN INDIANS; TABLE MOUNTAIN RANCHERIA;
CHER-AE HEIGHTS INDIAN COMMUNITY OF THE TRINIDAD RANCHERIA; SAN MANUAL
BAND OF MISSION INDIANS; VIEJAS RESERVATION OF THE CAPTAIN GRANDE BAND
OF DIEGUENO MISSION INDIANS and HOPLAND BAND OF POMO INDIANS; BARONA BAND
OF MISSION INDIANS; SYCUAN BAND OF MISSION INDIANS; AGUA CALIENTE BAND
OF CAHUILLA INDIANS, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. PETE WILSON, Governor; STATE
OF CALIFORNIA, Defendants-Appellants.
RUMSEY INDIAN RANCHERIA OF WINTUN INDIANS; TABLE MOUNTAIN
RANCHERIA; CHER-AE HEIGHTS INDIAN COMMUNITY OF THE TRINIDAD RANCHERIA;
SAN MANUAL BAND OF MISSION INDIANS; VIEJAS RESERVATION OF THE CAPTAIN
GRANDE BAND OF DIEGUENO MISSION INDIANS and HOPLAND BAND OF POMO
INDIANS; WINTUN INDIANS; SAN MANUAL BAND OF MISSION INDIANS; CABAZON
BAND OF MISSION INDIANS, the SANTA YNEZ BAND OF CHUMASH MISSION INDIANS
OF THE SANTA YSABEL RESERVATION, CALIFORNIA; VIEJAS RESERVATION, OF THE
CAPTAIN GRANDE BAND OF DIEGUENO MISSION INDIANS; SAN MANUAL BAND OF
MISSION INDIANS, the HOPLAND BAND OF POMO INDIANS; THE SYCUAN BAND OF
MISSION INDIANS; THE MORONGO BAND OF MISSION INDIANS; THE SANTA ROSA
BAND OF TACHE INDIANS; the CACHIL DEHE BAND OF WINTUN INDIANS OF THE
COLUSA INDIAN COMMUNITY; THE SOBOBA BAND OF CAHUILLA MISSION INDIANS;
THE ROBINSON BAND OF POMO INDIANS; THE AGUA CALIENTE BAND OF CAHUILLA
INDIANS; and THE BARONA GROUP OF THE CAPTAIN GRANDE BAND OF MISSION
INDIANS, Plaintiffs-Appellees-Cross-Appellants, v. PETE WILSON, Governor;
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, Defendants-Appellants-Cross-Appellees.
Nos. 93-16609, 93-16745
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Filed October 29, 1996
Page 322
Before: J. Clifford Wallace and Diarmuid F. O'Scannlain, Circuit Judges; Robert J. Kelleher,fn*District Judge.
[1] ORDER
[2] By order dated December 5, 1995 this panel construed appellees' letter briefs of August 28, 1995 as a renewed petition for rehearing in light of a California appellate court decision. We deferred consideration of the petition pending the decision by the California Supreme Court in that case, Western Telcon v. California State Lottery,53 Cal.Rptr.2d 812(Cal. 1996). The California Court has issued its opinion and the parties have filed additional letter briefs on the impact of Western Telcon on our decision in this matter. We have considered the arguments of the parties and are not persuaded that the decision in Western Telcon has any impact on our decision in Rumsey. Therefore, our opinion will remain unchanged.
[3] The motion of GTECH Corporation for leave to file an amicus brief regarding the remand order in this matter is DENIED.
[4] The Opinion filed on November 15, 1994, as amended August 11, 1995, slip op. 9977, and appearing at64 F.3d 1250(9th Cir. 1995), is further amended as follows:
At slip op. 9988, add the following footnote after the second sentence of the first full paragraph:
Since the State agreed not to "plead theEleventhAmendment to the United States Constitution as a jurisdictional bar to the instant action," the Supreme Court's decision in Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Florida,116 S.Ct. 1114(1996), has no effect on our jurisdiction over this appeal. Id. at 1119 (holding that § 2710(d)(7) of IGRA "cannot grant jurisdiction over a State that does not consent to be sued") (emphasis added); see Atascadero State Hosp. v. Scanlon,473 U.S. 234,238(1985) ("if a State waives its immunity and consents to suit in federal court, theEleventhAmendment does not bar the action").
[5] With this amendment, the panel has unanimously voted to deny the appellees' renewed petition for rehearing.
[6] The petition for rehearing is DENIED. The mandate shall issue in the normal course.Page 323
- The Honorable Robert J. Kelleher, Senior United States District Judge for the Central District of California, sitting by designation. ↩