Ket Hawkins, III v. Sacramento Cty. Dept. of Child Family & Adult Svc.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 24 2025 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT KET HAWKINS, III, No. 23-16221 Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:20-cv-00156-KJM-DB v. MEMORANDUM* SACRAMENTO COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILD, FAMILY AND ADULT SERVICES; MICHELLE CALLEJAS, Board of Supervisor; JEFF KING, Associate Judge, Deputy Director; DOROTHY GIPSON, Social Worker; JOAANNE EAST, County Counsel; SHAUNNA BUONO, Resource Family Social Worker, Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California Kimberly J. Mueller, District Judge, Presiding Submitted February 18, 2025** Before: SILVERMAN, WARDLAW, and DESAI, Circuit Judges. Ket Hawkins, III, appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). dismissing his action alleging violations of the Indian Child Welfare Act (“ICWA”). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). Seismic Reservoir 2020, Inc. v. Paulsson, 785 F.3d 330, 333 (9th Cir. 2015). We affirm. The district court properly dismissed Hawkins’s action because Hawkins failed to allege facts sufficient to establish that he was the parent of “Indian children” within the meaning of ICWA. See 25 U.S.C. § 1914 (specifying those who can bring a petition under ICWA; among others, lists parents and Indian custodians from whose custody an “Indian child” was removed); 25 U.S.C. § 1903(4) (defining the term “Indian child”); Maya v. Centex Corp., 658 F.3d 1060, 1067 (9th Cir. 2011) (explaining that a lack of statutory standing requires dismissal for failure to state a claim). AFFIRMED. 2 23-16221