Gardner v. Ute Tribal Court of the Uintah and Ouray

── Gardner v. Ute Tribal Court of the Uintah and Ouray ── Case No.: 25-4077 Court: Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit Date: March 24, 2026 Category: General Appellate Case: 25-4077 Document: 34-1 Date Filed: 03/24/2026 Page: 1 FILED United States Court of Appeals UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT March 24, 2026 _________________________________ Christopher M. Wolpert Clerk of Court LYNDA GARDNER; KANDRA AMBOH, Plaintiffs - Appellants, v. No. 25-4077 (D.C. No. 2:25-CV-00106-DBB) UTE TRIBAL COURT OF THE UINTAH (D. Utah) AND OURAY RESERVATION; JEFFREY KURTZ; JEFF S. RASMUSSEN, Defendants - Appellees. _________________________________ ORDER AND JUDGMENT * _________________________________ Before TYMKOVICH, BALDOCK, and MORITZ, Circuit Judges. _________________________________ Kandra Amboh faced criminal charges in the Ute Indian Tribal Court of the Uintah and Ouray Reservation in Utah (UITC). She and Lynda Gardner, who previously was an authorized lay advocate before the UITC, filed a complaint in federal district court under 25 U.S.C. § 1303, which provides that “[t]he privilege of After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined * unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.  Appellate Case: 25-4077 Document: 34-1 Date Filed: 03/24/2026 Page: 2 the writ of habeas corpus shall be available to any person, in a court of the United States, to test the legality of his detention by order of an Indian tribe.” Plaintiffs later tried to remove the criminal proceeding against Ms. Amboh from the UITC to the district court and filed numerous other motions in the district court. The magistrate judge concluded that Plaintiffs had not properly removed the criminal case, the record contradicted Plaintiffs’ claims the UITC was violating Ms. Amboh’s rights, and Plaintiffs’ motions were meritless. He therefore recommended that the district court deny the motions, dismiss the case, and remand to the UITC. The district court adopted the report and recommendation and entered a judgment dismissing the complaint and closing the case. Defendants argue we lack jurisdiction over this appeal because (1) 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d) bars review of “[a]n order remanding a case to the State court from which it was removed,” and (2) Ms. Amboh went to trial before the UITC and was found not guilty on all charges, mooting this matter. Because we agree with the latter point, we need not consider the first. See Sinochem Int’l Co. v. Malay. Int’l Shipping Corp., 549 U.S. 422, 431 (2007) (explaining that “there is no mandatory sequencing of jurisdictional issues” (internal quotation marks omitted)). “Mootness is a threshold issue because the existence of a live case or controversy is a constitutional prerequisite to federal court jurisdiction.” Ind v. Colo. Dep’t of Corr., 801 F.3d 1209, 1213 (10th Cir. 2015) (internal quotation marks omitted). “[T]he crucial question is whe