Michael Jackson v. RANDY TRACY, Acting Chief Administrator, Gila River Indian Community Department of…

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MICHAEL JACKSON,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
RANDY TRACY, Acting Chief
Administrator, Gila River Indian
Community Department of Rehabilitation
and Supervision and GILA RIVER
INDIAN COMMUNITY COURT,
Respondents - Appellees.
No. 12-17179
D.C. No. 2:11-cv-00448-FJM
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Frederick J. Martone, Senior District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted November 5, 2013
San Francisco, California
Before: REINHARDT and WATFORD, Circuit Judges, and LASNIK, District
Judge.**
FILED
DEC 11 2013
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.
** The Honorable Robert S. Lasnik, District Judge for the U.S. District
Court for the Western District of Washington, sitting by designation.

-- 1 of 2 --

1. The Indian Civil Rights Act (ICRA) guarantees a criminal defendant’s
right “at his own expense to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.” 25
U.S.C. § 1302(a)(6). We need not decide whether this provision guarantees the
right to effective assistance of retained counsel, because Jackson did not retain
counsel. Nor did he accept the offer of free counsel from the Gila River Indian
Community Defense Services Office. He instead hired a lay tribal advocate, who
was not admitted to the bar of any State. The plain meaning of the term “counsel”
as used in the ICRA is “licensed attorney.” See Wheat v. United States, 486 U.S.
153, 159 (1988). The ICRA does not protect a criminal defendant’s right to the
effective assistance of a tribal advocate who is not admitted to the bar.
2. For the same reason, we need not decide whether the ICRA’s guarantee
of the right to due process, 25 U.S.C. § 1302(a)(8), sets minimum constitutional
standards for effective representation by attorneys. Cf. Brubaker v. Dickson, 310
F.2d 30, 37 (9th Cir. 1962). Even if those standards apply here, they govern only
the conduct of licensed attorneys, not lay tribal advocates.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --