Jamul Action Committee; v. JONODEV CHAUDHURI, Chairwoman of the National Indian Gaming Commission;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JAMUL ACTION COMMITTEE; et al.,
Plaintiffs - Appellants,
v.
JONODEV CHAUDHURI, Chairwoman
of the National Indian Gaming
Commission; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 15-16021
D.C. No. 2:13-cv-01920-KJM-
KJN
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Kimberly J. Mueller, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted December 7, 2015
San Francisco, California
Before: KOZINSKI, BYBEE, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
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
FILED
JUN 09 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

-- 1 of 2 --

Indian Village’s gaming management contract. Construction of the casino was not
contingent on NIGC’s approval of the management contract, see 25 U.S.C.
§ 2710(d)(9) (“An Indian tribe may enter into a management contract . . . .”
(emphasis added)), and NEPA therefore set no strict timetable for agency action in
this case, see Sierra Club v. Gorsuch, 715 F.2d 653, 658–59 (D.C. Cir. 1983)
(“Absent a precise statutory timetable or other factors counseling expeditious
action, an agency’s control over the timetable of [its action] is entitled to
considerable deference.”).
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
(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.

-- 2 of 2 --