within the scope of their authority,” regardless of whether the extended immunity is granted by tribal legislation. Hardin v. White Mountain Apache Tribe, 779 F.2d 476, 478-79 (9th Cir.1985); United States v. Oregon, 657 F.2d 1009 n. 8 (9th Cir.1981); Wright v. Colville Tribal Enterprise Corp., 159 Wash.2d 108, 147 P.3d 1275 (2006). See also Tenneco Oil Co. v. Sac & Fox Tribe of Indians, 725 F.2d 572, 574 (10th Cir.1984); Romanella v. Hayward, 933 F.Supp. 163, 167 (D.Conn.1996). Of course, tribal sovereign immunity would not protect an individual defendant sued in his individual capacity, see Bassett v. Mashantucket Pequot Tribe, 204 F.3d 343, 360 (2nd Cir.2000), nor would it protect one who acted outside the scope of his authority. White Mountain Apache Indian Tribe, 480 P.2d at 658 (<HOLDING>). Plaintiff has not alleged that any of the
holding that a suit against a state official in his or her official capacity is not a suit against the official but rather is a suit against the officials office holding tribal sovereign immunity protects officers from suit in official but not individual capacity holding that removal to federal court does not waive tribal sovereign immunity holding that a suit against a state official in his or her official capacity is a suit against the state itself and not cognizable under  1983 holding that tribal sovereign immunity did not bar rico suit only after concluding that sue and be sued clause in tribal ordinance unequivocally expressed waiver of sovereign immunity