
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, and Tulalip Tribes, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. State of WASHINGTON, Defendant, Swinomish Tribal Community; et al., Real Parties in Interest, and Suquamish Indian Tribe, Defendant-Appellee. United States of America, Plaintiff, v. State of Washington, Defendant, and Suquamish Indian Tribe, Defendant-Appellee, Lummi Nation, Real-party-in-interest-Appellant.
    Nos. 06-35185, 06-35241.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Argued and Submitted Oct. 17, 2007.
    Filed Oct. 26, 2007.
    Christopher Lee Pickrell, Esq., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Seattle, WA, Peter C. Monson, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice Environment and Natural Resource Division, Denver, CO, for Plaintiff.
    Mason D. Morisset, Esq., Rob Roy Smith, Esq., Morisset Schlosser Jozwiak & McGaw, Seattle, WA, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
    Robert K. Costello, Esq., Fronda C. Woods, Esq., Michael S. Grossmann, Office of the Washington Attorney General, Olympia, WA, for Defendant.
    Michelle Hansen, Esq., Office of Tribal Attorney, Suquamish, WA, for DefendantAppellee.
    Alix Foster, Esq., Office of the Tribal Attorney, La Conner, WA, Bill Tobin, Esq., Vashon, WA, Phillip Evan Katzen, Esq., Cory J. Albright, Esq., Kanji & Katzen, PLLC, Lauren P. Rasmussen, Esq., Law Offices of Lauren P. Rasmussen, PLLC, Marc D. Slonim, Esq., Richard M. Berley, Esq., John B. Arum, Esq., Ziontz Chestnut Varnell Berley & Slonim, Seattle, WA, Michele C. Coyle, Hogan and Hart-son, Los Angeles, CA, Phillip Evan Katzen, Esq., Brian H. Collins, Esq., Lon Ellen Nies, Esq., Skokomish Indian Tribe, Skokomish Nation, WA, Daniel A. Raas, Esq., Office of the Reservation Attorney, Hairy L. Johnsen, Esq., Raas Johnsen & Stuen, P.S., Mary M. Neil, Esq., Lummi Indian Nation Office of the Reservation Attorney, Bellingham, WA, for Real-party-in-interest-Appellant.
    
      Before: D.W. NELSON, BEAM , and RYMER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The Honorable C. Arlen Beam, Senior United States Circuit Judge for the Eighth Circuit, sitting by designation.
    
   MEMORANDUM

This case is remanded to the district court. A 12(b)(6) dismissal is not appropriate. The district court failed to make any determination on whether it has continuing jurisdiction and on what ground. The jurisdictional basis is not self-evident; it is necessarily linked to the nature of the claim being asserted. The issues and proceedings are complex and meaningful appellate review requires a more developed record.

REMANDED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     