Jamul Action Committee v. Jonodev ChaudhuriJamul Action Committee v. Jonodev Chaudhuri
Barbara M.R. Marvin, DOJ—U.S. Department of Justice, Environmental Enforcement Section, Elizabeth Ann Peterson, Attorney, DOJ—U.S. Department of Justice, Environment & Natural Resources Division, Judith Rabinowitz, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Frank Ronald Lawrence, Law Office of Frank Lawrence, Nevada City, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.
Patrick D. Webb, Webb & Carey, San Diego, CA, for Amici Curiae.
Before: KOZINSKI, BYBEE, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
MEMORANDUM*
1. The district court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to compel the National Indian Gaming Commission (“NIGC“) to more quickly release a supplemental environmental impact statement analyzing NIGC’s approval of Jamul Indian Village’s gaming management contract. Construction of the casino was not contingent on NIGC’s approval of the management contract, see
2. The district court did not abuse its discretion by rejecting plaintiffs’ request for a preliminary injunction. Plaintiffs have not shown a likelihood of success on the merits of their NEPA claim, and their contentions that defendants violated the state-tribal compact and the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act are likewise without merit. See Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20, 129 S.Ct. 365, 172 L.Ed.2d 249 (2008) (“A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must establish that he is likely to succeed on the merits.“).
3. To the extent plaintiffs contend that the land on which the Jamul casino is being built is not Indian land, circuit precedent forecloses that argument. See Big Lagoon Rancheria v. California, 789 F.3d 947, 953 (9th Cir. 2015) (en banc).
AFFIRMED.