Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Johnny Ray Walls-Bey, Petitioner v. United States District Court for the District of Arizona, et al.

26-5475

No. 26-

IN THE

Supreme Court of the United States

JOHNNY RAY WALLS-BEY,

Petitioner,

v.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA,

Respondent,

and

STEPHANIE PERLOW, JASON FLEMING, SUSAN MCCLURE, JAMES E.

BRUCE, JR, AND ALEXIS JORDAN AUSTIN,

Real Parties in Interest.

On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the

United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

(No. 26-1069)

PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI

JOHNNY RAY WALLS-BEY

Petitioner, Pro Se

Enrolled Member of the Mississippi

Band of Choctaw Indians

3920 E. Thomas Road, Ste. 80260

Phoenix, Arizona 85060

(928) 900-6043

Jraywallsbey@wcnationaz.org

1 of 24

QUESTIONS PRESENTED

1. Whether the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals committed clear error and abused its

discretion in denying Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Mandamus under the factors

set forth in Bauman v. United States District Court, 557 F.2d 650 (9th Cir. 1977),

where the District Court transferred an Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) civil

action under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a) to a state/federal forum where custody proceedings

were procured through extrinsic fraud and jurisdictional defect, thereby

extinguishing Petitioner's federal statutory rights under 25 U.S.C. § 1914.

2. Whether a United States District Court may transfer an action asserting claims

under 25 U.S.C. § 1914 and 42 U.S.C. § 1983, brought by an Indian parent residing

with his Indian children in the forum state, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a) to the

district where the defendant state officials reside, when the injury and denial of

statutory rights occurred in the transferor district.

3. Whether the Ninth Circuit’s denial of mandamus conflicts with this Court’s

controlling precedents in Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians v. Holyfield, 490 U.S.

30 (1989), and Haaland v. Brackeen, 599 U.S. 255 (2023), requiring federal courts to

give full effect to Congress’s intent to protect Indian families and tribal sovereignty,

and with M.L.B. v. S.L.J., 519 U.S. 102 (1996), and Boddie v. Connecticut, 401 U.S.

371 (1971), prohibiting wealth-based barriers to judicial access in child custody and

parental rights proceedings.

2 of 24

PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDING

Petitioner is Johnny Ray Walls-Bey, proceeding pro se. Petitioner is an enrolled

member of the Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians, a federally recognized Indian

tribe. Petitioner’s three minor children are "Indian children" within the meaning of

25 U.S.C. § 1903(4) as the biological children of an enrolled tribal member and are

eligible for enrollment in the Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians.

Respondent is the United States District Court for the District of Arizona (Phoenix

Division), whose January 28, 2026, transfer order under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a) was the

subject of the petition for writ of mandamus in the Court of Appeals.

Real Parties in Interest are:

1. Stephanie Perlow, Judge of the Christian Circuit Court, Kentucky (in her official

capacity);

2. Susan McClure, Judge of the Christian Circuit Court, Kentucky (in her official

capacity);

3. Jason Fleming, Judge of the Christian Circuit Court, Kentucky (in his official

capacity);

4. James E. Bruce, Jr., private attorney; and

5. Alexis Jordan Austin, mother of the minor children.

3 of 24

CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT

Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 29.6, Petitioner Johnny Ray Walls-Bey is an

individual and is not a corporation. No publicly held company owns any interest in

this proceeding.

DIRECTLY RELATED PROCEEDINGS

Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 14.1(b)(iii), the following proceedings are directly

related to the judgment sought to be reviewed:

1. Johnny Ray Walls-Bey v. United States District Court for the District of Arizona,

No. 26-1069 (9th Cir.) — Order denying Petition for Writ of Mandamus entered

March 19, 2026 (judgment sought to be reviewed).

2. Johnny Ray Walls-Bey v. Stephanie Perlow, et al., No. 2:25-cv-04315-MTL (D.

Ariz.) — Order transferring venue entered January 28, 2026.

3. Johnny Ray Walls-Bey v. Stephanie Perlow, et al., No. 5:26-cv-00018-BJB (W.D.

Ky.) — Transferred underlying action.

CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT

Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 29.6, Petitioner Johnny Ray Walls-Bey is an

individual and is not a corporation. No parent or publicly held corporation owns any

stock or other interest in this case.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

QUESTIONS PRESENTED....................................................... i

PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDING............................................... ii

CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT.......................................... ii

DIRECTLY RELATED PROCEEDINGS ............................................ ii

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES...................................................... iv

4 of 24

1

OPINIONS BELOW

JURISDICTION

1

CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY PROVISIONS INVOLVED

2

4

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

A. Tribal Status and Children’s Residence in Arizona

4

B. Fraudulent Procurement of Kentucky State Court Jurisdiction

4

C. District Court Transfer Order and Mandamus Proceedings

5

REASONS FOR GRANTING THE WRIT

.................................. 6

I. THE NINTH CIRCUIT’S DENIAL OF MANDAMUS CONFLICTS WITH THIS

COURT’S DECISIONS IN MISSISSIPPI BAND OF CHOCTAW INDIANS V.

HOLYFIELD AND HAALAND V. BRACKEEN (RULE 10(c))

12

II. THE DISTRICT COURT’S IMPROPER TRANSFER UNDER § 1406(a) RAISES

AN IMPORTANT, RECURRING QUESTION OF FEDERAL LAW GOVERNING

ICWA ACTIONS UNDER 25 U.S.C. § 1914 (RULE 10(a), (c))

13

III. THE DENIAL OF MANDAMUS PERPETUATES UNCONSTITUTIONAL

WEALTH-BASED BARRIERS TO JUDICIAL ACCESS IN VIOLATION OF M.L.B.

AND BODDIE

14

ARGUMENT

14

CONCLUSION

22

APPENDIX INDEX

23

PROOF OF SERVICE

23

TABLE OF CITED AUTHORITIES

Cases:

5 of 24

Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl, 570 U.S. 637 (2013)..................... 7,10

Bauman v. U.S. Dist. Court, 557 F.2d 650 (9th Cir. 1977).............. 1, 12, 13

Boddie v. Connecticut, 401 U.S. 371 (1971)..............

i, 11

Costlow v. Weeks, 790 F.2d 1486 (9th Cir. 1986)........................ 9

Doe v. Mann, 415 F.3d 1038 (9th Cir. 2005).............................. 8, 9, 13

Dombrowski v. Pfister, 380 U.S. 479 (1965).............................. 10

Gibson v. Berryhill, 411 U.S. 564 (1973)................................ 10

Griffin v. Illinois, 351 U.S. 12 (1956)................................. 11

Haaland v. Brackeen, 599 U.S. 255 (2023)............................... i, 6, 7

In re Mersho, 6 F.4th 891 (9th Cir. 2021)............................... 12, 13

Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803)........................ 13

Middlesex County Ethics Comm. v. Garden State Bar Ass'n,

457 U.S. 423 (1982).................................................... 10

Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians v. Holyfield, 490 U.S. 30 (1989)

passim

M.L.B. v. S.L.J, 519 U.S. 102 (1996)................................... i, 11

Myers v. Bennett Law Offices, 238 F.3d 1068 (9th Cir. 2001)............. 9,12

Prairie Band of Potawatomi Indians v. Pierce, 253 F.3d 1234

(10th Cir. 2001)........................................................ 8

Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (1982)................................. 10, 13

Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000)................................. 10

United States v. Throckmorton, 98 U.S. 61 (1878)....................... 5, 12

Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971)................................... 9, 10

6 of 24

Constitutional Provisions:

.............. 2, 11

U.S. Const, amend. V (Due Process Clause)

U.S. Const, amend. XIV, § 1 (Due Process & Equal Protection)

2, 11

Statutes and Regulations:

25 U.S.C. §§ 1901-1963 (Indian Child Welfare Act)

passim

25 U.S.C. § 1901

2, 6

25 U.S.C. § 1902

2, 6

25 U.S.C. § 1903(1)

2, 7

25 U.S.C. § 1903(4)

ii, 2, 4

25 U.S.C. § 1911

2, 6

25 U.S.C. § 1912

2, 6

25 U.S.C. § 1914

...... passim

28 U.S.C. § 1254(1)

1

28 U.S.C. § 1331

1

28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)

3, 9, 12

28 U.S.C. § 1406(a)

passim

28 U.S.C. § 1651(a) (All Writs Act)

3, 12

28 U.S.C. § 1746

17,19

28 U.S.C. § 1915

11,18

28 U.S.C. § 2101(c)

1

42 U.S.C. § 1983

.................................... 3, 5, 8

25 C.F.R. § 23.2

3, 7

7 of 24

KRS 403.800 et seq. (Kentucky UCCJEA)................................... 4

Other Authorities:

Indian Entities Recognized by and Eligible To Receive Services From the

United States Bureau of Indian Affairs, 91 Fed. Reg. 4102 (Jan. 30, 2026) 4

BIA Guidelines for State Courts; Indian Child Custody Proceedings,

80 Fed. Reg. 10146 (2015) / 2016 Regs................................. 7

OPINIONS BELOW

The order of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denying

Petitioner's Petition for Writ of Mandamus in Case No. 26-1069 was entered on

March 19, 2026, is unreported, and is reproduced in the Appendix (App.) at la-3a.

The order of the United States District Court for the District of Arizona transferring

the action to the Western District of Kentucky under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a) in Case.

2:25-cv-04315-MTL was entered on January 28, 2026, is unreported, and is

reproduced at App. 4a—7a.

JURISDICTION

The jurisdiction of this Court is invoked under 28 U.S.C. § 1254(1). The United

States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit entered its order denying the Petition

for Writ of Mandamus on March 19, 2026. This petition was timely postmarked on

June 17, 2026 (received June 23, 2026), within the 90 days allowed by 28 U.S.C. §

2101(c) and Supreme Court Rule 13.1, and is resubmitted in conformity with

Supreme Court Rule 14.5. The statutory basis for jurisdiction in the District Court

8 of 24

was 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question), 25 U.S.C. § 1914 (Indian Child Welfare

Act), and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (deprivation of civil rights). The Court of Appeals'

jurisdiction was invoked under 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a).

CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY PROVISIONS INVOLVED

U.S. Const, amend. V provides in relevant part:

"No person shall... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of

law . . . ."

U.S. Const, amend. XIV, § 1 provides in relevant part:

"No State shall. . . deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due

process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of

the laws."

25 U.S.C. § 1902 provides:

"The Congress hereby declares that it is the policy of this Nation to protect the best

interests of Indian children and to promote the stability and security of Indian

tribes and families by the establishment of minimum Federal standards for the

removal of Indian children from their families and the placement of such children in

foster or adoptive homes which will reflect the unique values of Indian culture, and

by the providing of assistance to Indian tribes and communities in the operation of

child and family service programs."

25 U.S.C. § 1903(4) provides:

9 of 24

"‘Indian child’ means any unmarried person who is under age eighteen and is either

(a) a member of an Indian tribe or (b) is eligible for membership in an Indian tribe

and is the biological child of a member of an Indian tribe."

25 U.S.C. § 1914 provides:

"Any Indian child who is the subject of any action for foster care placement or

termination of parental rights under State law, any parent or Indian custodian from

whose custody such child was removed, and the Indian child's tribe may petition

any court of competent jurisdiction to invalidate such action upon a showing that

such action violated any provision of sections 1911, 1912, and 1913 of this title."

28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2) provides:

"A civil action may be brought in ... a judicial district in which a substantial part of

the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred, or a substantial part of

property that is the subject of the action is situated . . . ."

28 U.S.C. § 1406(a) provides:

"The district court of a district in which is filed a case laying venue in the wrong

division or district shall dismiss, or if it be in the interest of justice, transfer such

case to any district or division in which it could have been brought."

28 U.S.C. § 1651(a) provides:

"The Supreme Court and all courts established by Act of Congress may issue all

writs necessary or appropriate in aid of their respective jurisdictions and agreeable

to the usages and principles of law."

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

10 of 24

A. Tribal Status and Children’s Residence in Arizona

Petitioner Johnny Ray Walls-Bey is an enrolled citizen of the Mississippi Band of

Choctaw Indians, a federally recognized Indian tribe. See 91 Fed. Reg. 4102, 4103

(Jan. 30, 2026). Petitioner’s three minor children are "Indian children" under 25

U.S.C. § 1903(4) because they are the biological children of an enrolled member and

are eligible for tribal citizenship.

In June 2024, the minor children established continuous physical residence with

Petitioner in Phoenix, Arizona. Arizona became the children's "home state" under

the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA).

B. Fraudulent Procurement of Kentucky State Court Jurisdiction

In November 2024—five months after the children relocated to Arizona—Real Party

in Interest Alexis Jordan Austin filed a custody action in the Christian Circuit

Court of Kentucky (Case No. 24-CI-01016).

On January 8, 2025, Judge Jason Shea Fleming entered an order asserting "home

state" jurisdiction in Kentucky. This jurisdictional assertion was procured through

extrinsic fraud: Judge Fleming personally entered evidence into the record while

attributing it to Real Party in Interest. On March 26, 2025, counsel for Real Party

in Interest, James E. Bruce, Jr., formally filed a motion confirming that the exhibits

were "not submitted by him." Despite this fraud and the total absence of ICWA

compliance or notice to the Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians under 25 U.S.C. §

1912, the Kentucky court continued to issue custody orders. See United States v.

Throckmorton, 98 U.S. 61, 65-66 (1878).

11 of 24

C. Federal Court Proceedings and Denial of Mandamus

On November 17, 2025, Petitioner filed a federal civil action in the U.S. District

Court for the District of Arizona (Case No. 2:25-cv-04315-MTL) asserting claims

under 25 U.S.C. § 1914 and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 to invalidate the void state court

custody orders and enjoin continuous violations of ICWA and constitutional due

process.

On January 28, 2026, the District Court (Liburdi, J.) transferred the action to the

Western District of Kentucky under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a), holding that venue was

improper in Arizona because the state court defendants resided in Kentucky. The

District Court disregarded the fact that the Indian children and Petitioner resided

in Arizona, that the harm occurred in Arizona, and that venue was proper under 28

U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2).

Petitioner filed a Petition for Writ of Mandamus in the Ninth Circuit (Case No. 26-

1069) to vacate the transfer order. On March 19, 2026, the Ninth Circuit summarily

denied the petition, stating that Petitioner had "not demonstrated a clear and

indisputable right to the extraordinary remedy of mandamus." (App. la-3a).

REASONS FOR GRANTING THE WRIT

I. THE NINTH CIRCUIT’S DENIAL OF MANDAMUS CONFLICTS WITH THIS

COURT’S DECISIONS IN MISSISSIPPI BAND OF CHOCTAW INDIANS V.

HOLYFIELD AND HAALAND V. BRACKEEN (RULE 10(c)).

This Court has repeatedly established that the Indian Child Welfare Act must be

strictly enforced across all judicial forums to prevent the unwarranted separation of

Indian children from their families and tribal culture. In Mississippi Band of

12 of 24

Choctaw Indians v. Holyfield, 490 U.S. 30, 49 (1989), this Court held that Congress

intended ICWA to safeguard not only individual Indian families but the vital

interests of the tribes themselves. In Haaland v. Brackeen, 599 U.S. 255 (2023), this

Court reaffirmed Congress’s broad Article I plenary authority to establish uniform

federal standards for child custody proceedings involving Indian children.

The Ninth Circuit’s refusal to issue mandamus to correct an improper § 1406(a)

venue transfer conflicts directly with these principles. By transferring Petitioner's §

1914 enforcement action to the very judicial district where the underlying state

court officials are situated and where ICWA’s applicability has been repudiated, the

federal courts have effectively destroyed the independent federal remedial

mechanism that Congress specifically created in 25 U.S.C. § 1914.

II. THE DISTRICT COURT’S IMPROPER TRANSFER UNDER § 1406(a) RAISES

AN IMPORTANT, RECURRING QUESTION OF FEDERAL LAW GOVERNING

ICWA ACTIONS UNDER 25 U.S.C. § 1914 (RULE 10(a), (c)).

The District Court erred as a matter of law in ruling that venue was improper in

Arizona under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). Under § 1391(b)(2), venue is proper in any

judicial district "in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to

the claim occurred." Petitioner and the Indian children reside in Arizona; the

unlawful exercise of extra-territorial custody orders directly targets and injures

them in Arizona. See Myers v. Bennett Law Offices, 238 F.3d 1068,1075-76 (9th

Cir. 2001).

13 of 24

Furthermore, the Ninth Circuit has recognized that 25 U.S.C. § 1914 provides

federal question jurisdiction to invalidate state court orders that violate ICWA. Doe

v. Mann, 415 F.3d 1038,1047 (9th Cir. 2005). Transferring an ICWA invalidation

claim to a forum infected by documented fraud (Throckmorton, 98 U.S. at 65)

operates as a de facto abstention, depriving an Indian parent of an uncompromised

federal forum. Under the five-factor mandamus standard in Bauman v. United

States District Court, 557 F.2d 650 (9th Cir. 1977), and In re Mersho, 6 F.4th 891

(9th Cir. 2021), the District Court’s transfer order constituted clear legal error

resulting in irreparable harm that cannot be remedied on post-judgment appeal.

III. THE DENIAL OF MANDAMUS PERPETUATES UNCONSTITUTIONAL

WEALTH-BASED BARRIERS TO JUDICIAL ACCESS IN VIOLATION OF M.L.B.

AND BODDIE.

Under M.L.B. v. S.L.J., 519 U.S. 102, 124 (1996), and Boddie v. Connecticut, 401

U.S. 371, 374 (1971), the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses prohibit the

imposition of wealth-based financial obstacles that block indigent parents from

defending their fundamental liberty interests in the care and custody of their

children. The procedural maneuvers in the lower courts, combined with recurring

denials of in forma pauperis protections, have erected an unconstitutional financial

barrier preventing an indigent Indian father from vindicating statutory and

constitutional protections in federal court.

ARGUMENT

A. The Ninth Circuit Abused Its Discretion in Denying the Petition for Writ

of Mandamus

14 of 24

The Ninth Circuit's denial of mandamus must be reviewed under the five-factor test

articulated in Bauman v. U.S. Dist. Court, 557 F.2d 650, 654-55 (9th Cir. 1977), and

reaffirmed in In reMersho, 6 F.4th 891 (9th Cir. 2021). Under that test, the Court

considers: (1) whether the petitioner has no other adequate means to attain the

relief desired; (2) whether the petitioner will be damaged or prejudiced in a way not

correctable on appeal; (3) whether the district court's order is clearly erroneous as a

matter of law; (4) whether the district court's order is an oft-repeated error or

manifests a persistent disregard of the federal rules; and (5) whether the district

court's order raises new and important problems or issues of first impression. Id.

While the third factor—clear error as a matter of law—is a necessary condition for

granting mandamus, the absence of any factor is not necessarily dispositive. Id.

1. The Third Bauman Factor Is Satisfied: The District Court's Order Is

Clearly Erroneous as a Matter of Law

The District Court's order transferring the case to the Western District of Kentucky

is clearly erroneous as a matter of law for at least three (3) reasons:

First, the District Court misapplied 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a). The District Court held

that venue was improper in Arizona because the state court custody proceedings

were pending in Kentucky. But the District Court failed to consider that Petitioner

resides in Arizona, the children reside in Arizona, and the harm (loss of custody) is

felt in Arizona. Under the Ninth Circuit's own precedent in Myers v. Bennett Law

Offices, 238 F.3d 1068 (9th Cir. 2001), venue is proper where the effect of the

conduct is felt. The District Court's transfer contradicts Myers.

15 of 24

Second, the District Court failed to consider the fraud that underlies the state

court custody proceedings. As demonstrated above, the state court's "home state"

order was procured through fraud. Under the principle announced in United States

v. Throckmorton, 98 U.S. 61, 65-66 (1878), a judgment procured by fraud is void and

may be collaterally attacked. The District Court's transfer of the case to the very

forum in which the fraudulent judgment was entered is clearly erroneous.

Third, the District Court's transfer has the same practical effect as Younger

abstention — it allows the state court proceedings to proceed without federal court

review — without the procedural protections that Younger requires. The District

Court did not technically apply Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971), when it

transferred this case under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a). However, the transfer order

functions as Younger abstention in substance, if not in form.

Younger abstention is a narrow doctrine that applies only in limited circumstances.

Under Younger and its progeny, federal courts must abstain from hearing cases that

would interfere with pending state proceedings only when:

(i) there is an ongoing state judicial proceeding;

(ii) the proceeding implicates important state interests;

(iii) the federal plaintiff has an adequate opportunity in the state proceedings to

raise constitutional challenges; AND

(iv) the state proceedings are conducted in good faith and without harassment.

16 of 24

Middlesex County Ethics Comm. v. Garden State Bar Ass 'n, 457 U.S. 423, 432-37

(1982); see also Younger, 401 U.S. at 43-44. Importantly, Younger abstention

has never been extended to private custody proceedings between

biological parents. See Laurie v. Lutheran Hosp, of Indiana, Inc., 736 F.2d 204,

208 (7th Cir. 1984) (declining to extend Younger to private custody proceedings); cf.

Moore v. Sims, 442 U.S. 415, 423-25 (1979) (applying Younger to state-initiated

child abuse proceedings but not addressing private custody proceedings).

The District Court's transfer order has the same practical effect as Younger

abstention because it allows the state court proceedings to proceed without federal

court review. However, the transfer order does not include the procedural

protections that Younger requires:

(a) There is no finding that the Kentucky state court proceedings implicate

important state interests. While the State has an important interest in the welfare

of children, see Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745, 753-55 (1982), the State does not

have an important interest in determining which parent should have custody of a

child in the absence of evidence of parental unfitness. See Troxel v. Granville, 530

U.S. 57, 65-67 (2000) (recognizing the fundamental right of parents to make

decisions concerning the care, custody, and control of their children).

(b) There is no finding that Petitioner has an adequate opportunity in the state

proceedings to raise his constitutional claims. The Kentucky Court of Appeals' May

6, 2026, order demonstrates that Petitioner does NOT have an adequate

opportunity to raise his ICWA claim in the Kentucky state proceedings. If Petitioner

17 of 24

cannot raise his ICWA claim in the Kentucky state proceedings, and he cannot raise

it in the federal courts (because the case has been transferred to Kentucky), then

Petitioner has no forum in which to raise his federal claim. This is exactly

the type of procedural defect that Younger abstention is designed to avoid.

(c) There is no finding that the state proceedings are conducted in good faith and

without harassment. To the contrary, the state proceedings appear to be conducted

in bad faith and for the purpose of harassment: (i) Judge Jason Shea Fleming has

admitted to procuring evidence, see Affidavit of Judge Jason Shea Fleming,

Appendix at 18a; (ii) James E. Bruce, Jr., the opposing party, has filed frivolous

motions and has made false statements to the court, see Motion of James E. Bruce,

Jr., Appendix at 19a; and (iii) the state court has transferred venue multiple times

in an effort to defeat Petitioner's ICWA claim, see Order Transferring Venue,

Appendix at 12a-13a.

The fraud exception to Younger abstention applies when state proceedings are

conducted in bad faith and for the purpose of harassment. Dombrowski v. Pfister,

380 U.S. 479, 488-92 (1965); Gibson v. Berryhill, 411 U.S. 564, 569-71 (1973); see

also Younger, 401 U.S. at 48-49 (recognizing the fraud exception). The District

Court was required to consider the fraud exception before transferring the case. The

District Court's failure to consider the fraud exception is legal error that warrants

mandamus relief.

In sum, the District Court's transfer order, while not labeled as "Younger

abstention," has the same practical effect as Younger abstention — it allows the

18 of 24

state court proceedings to proceed without federal court review — without the

procedural protections that Younger requires. The District Court should have

either: (1) applied Younger abstention explicitly and made the findings required by

Middlesex’, or (2) declined to transfer the case under § 1406(a) because the transfer

would have the same effect as Younger abstention without the procedural

protections of Younger. The District Court's failure to do either is legal error that

warrants mandamus relief.

2. The First and Second Bauman Factors Are Satisfied: Petitioner Has No

Other Adequate Means and Will Be Damaged in a Way Not Correctable on

Appeal

Petitioner has no other adequate means to attain the relief desired. The transfer

order is an interlocutory order that is not immediately appealable. See 28 U.S.C. §

1291. Petitioner will be damaged in a way not correctable on appeal because,

without an injunction, Petitioner will be forced to appear in the Christian Circuit

Court in Kentucky, where the fraudulently obtained orders will have preclusive

effect. The loss of custody of Petitioner's children is the quintessential irreparable

harm. See Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745, 758-59 (1982).

3. The Fourth Bauman Factor Is Satisfied: The District Court's Error Is an

Oft-Repeated Error

The District Court's error is an oft-repeated error. The pattern of five (5) Ninth

Circuit dismissals for "alleged lack of jurisdiction" demonstrates that the District

Court (and the Ninth Circuit) are using jurisdictional mechanisms to avoid the

merits of Petitioner's federal claims. This pattern of dismissals constitutes a

19 of 24

"persistent disregard of the federal rules" within the meaning of the fourth Bauman

factor.

4. The Fifth Bauman Factor Is Satisfied: The District Court's Order Raises

New and Important Problems

The District Court's order raises new and important problems of first impression,

including: (1) whether a district court may transfer an ICWA case to a forum in

which the state court custody proceedings were procured through fraud; (2) whether

a district court may transfer an ICWA case to a forum in which the state court

defendants reside; and (3) whether a district court may transfer an ICWA case

under § 1406(a) to evade federal jurisdiction under 25 U.S.C. § 1914.

B. The Questions Presented Are of Nationwide Importance

As demonstrated in Part IV.C above, the questions presented in this case are of

profound national importance. They affect thousands of Indian children, families,

and tribes across the Nation. The pattern of Ninth Circuit dismissals, the Sixth

Circuit case, the Kentucky Court of Appeals' narrowing of ICWA, and the empirical

data on ICWA case volume all demonstrate that the questions presented are

recurring, important, and worthy of Supreme Court review.

C. The Harm to Petitioner Is Irreparable

If the Ninth Circuit's denial of mandamus is allowed to stand, Petitioner will suffer

irreparable harm:

20 of 24

1. Loss of Federal ICWA Jurisdiction: The transfer of the case to the W.D.

Ky. effectively extinguishes Petitioner's federal cause of action under 25

U.S.C. § 1914.

2. Denial of Access to Federal Courts: The transfer effectively denies

Petitioner access to the Ninth Circuit (the federal appellate court with

jurisdiction over Arizona).

3. Forced Appearance in State Court: Without an injunction, Petitioner will

be forced to appear in the Christian Circuit Court in Kentucky.

4. Loss of Custody of His Children: The ongoing state court proceedings

could result in an order returning the children to Kentucky.

5. Stigma of Fraudulently Obtained Orders: The state court orders,

obtained through fraud, would have preclusive effect in any future

proceeding.

D. The Harm to All Similarly Situated Litigants Is Substantial

The Ninth Circuit's denial of mandamus will have substantial harmful effects on all

similarly situated litigants:

1. Erosion of Federal ICWA Jurisdiction: The transfer mechanism will

become a routine tool for evading federal ICWA jurisdiction.

2. Chilling Effect on ICWA Enforcement: Indian parents will be deterred

from filing federal ICWA actions.

21 of 24

3. State Court Collusion: State courts and federal courts will be able to

collude to ensure that ICWA cases are heard in forums favorable to the state

court's jurisdiction.

4. Inconsistent Application of ICWA: The lack of Supreme Court guidance

will result in inconsistent application of ICWA.

5. Violation of Treaty Obligations: The federal government's treaty

obligations to Indian tribes will be undermined.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the petition for a writ of certiorari should be granted, the

March 19, 2026, order of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals vacated, and the case

remanded with instructions to grant the writ of mandamus directing the District

Court to retain jurisdiction over Petitioner’s claims.

Respectfully submitted,

JOTNNYTIAY WALLS-BEY

Petitioner, Pro Se

Enrolled Member of the Mississippi

Band of Choctaw Indians

3920 E. Thomas Road, Ste. 80260

Phoenix, Arizona 85060

(928) 900-6043

Jravwallsbey@wcnationaz.org

Dated: August 19, 2026

22 of 24