State of Alaska v. Jewell et al

Filing 94

ORDER denying 89 Motion Relief under FRCP 60(b). Signed by Judge John W. Sedwick on 8/22/17. (GMM, CHAMBERS STAFF)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF ALASKA

STATE OF ALASKA,
Plaintiff,
vs.
RYAN ZINKE, et al.,
Defendants,
and
ALASKA WILDLIFE ALLIANCE, et al.,
Intervener-Defendants.

SAFARI CLUB INTERNATIONAL,
Plaintiff,
vs.
RYAN ZINKE, et al.,
Defendants,
and
ALASKA WILDLIFE ALLIANCE, et al.,
Intervener-Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

3:17-CV-00013 JWS
ORDER AND OPINION
[Re: Motion at doc. 89]

3:17-cv-00014 JWS

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

ALASKA PROFESSIONAL HUNTERS
ASSOCIATION, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT
OF THE INTERIOR, et al.,
Defendants,
and
ALASKA WILDLIFE ALLIANCE, et al.,
Intervener-Defendants.

3:17-cv-00026 JWS

I. MOTION PRESENTED
At docket 89, proposed intervener Ronald T. West (“West”) moves for relief from
the court’s decision denying his request at docket 61 to intervene in this case. West’s
motion is brought pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(1) and (b)(6). The court’s order is at
docket 72, and a judgment holding that West may not intervene is at docket 82.
II. BACKGROUND
The plaintiff in Case No. 3:17-cv-013 is the State of Alaska (“State”). In its
complaint the State seeks declaratory and injunctive relief directed at a rule
promulgated by the National Park Service restricting hunting and trapping within
National Park System Preserves in Alaska and a rule promulgated by the Fish and
Wildlife Service restricting hunting and trapping in National Wildlife Refuges in Alaska.

2

The plaintiff in Case No. 3:17-cv-014 is Safari Club International (“Safari”). Safari’s
complaint is directed at the same federal rules challenged by the State and also at a
refuge specific rule promulgated by the Fish and Wildlife Service applicable to the
Kenai National Wildlife Refuge. In Case No. 3:127-cv-026, the Alaska Professional
Hunters Association, et al. (“Hunters”) challenge the same regulations targeted by the
State in its lawsuit. The three cases were consolidated. Case No. 3:17-cv-013 is the
lead case. Numerous conservation groups sought leave to intervene pursuant to Fed.
R. Civ. P. 24 seeking to defend the rules challenged in the three complaints. The court
granted them leave to intervene in an order at docket 54.
III. DISCUSSION
West filed a motion to intervene at docket 61, which was supported by his
affidavit at docket 62, but which was not accompanied by a proposed pleading setting
out West’s claim or defense. His motion was opposed by all three plaintiffs, the
defendants, and the intervener-defendants. After reviewing the parties’ papers, it was
evident to the court that there was no merit in West’s motion. The court’s order at
docket 72 denying West’s motion was crafted in an effort to spare judicial resources by
incorporating as its rationale the arguments and authorities cited in the Federal
Defendants’ opposition at docket 66.
The motion at docket 89 is brought pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(1 and
60(b)(6). Rule 60(b)(1) provides that relief may be awarded where there has been
“mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect.” West argues that one or more
of these conditions inheres in his belief that the other parties agreed that he had until
July 19, 2017, in which to file an opposition to the pending defense motion to dismiss
3

and the various excuses he advances to show why he did not file an opposition by that
date. However, even if there were assent by the other parties to a date for West’s filing
an opposition, and even if his failure to do so was the result of inadvertence, mistake or
excusable neglect, that has no bearing on West’s motion to intervene. That motion was
defective, not because West had failed to file an opposition to the defense motion to
dismiss, but because his motion was not “accompanied by a pleading that sets out the
claim or defense for which intervention is sought.”1 Motion papers are not pleadings.
Pleadings are limited to complaints and answers.2 West was obligated to lodge a
proposed pleading with his motion to intervene. He did not do so.
Rule 60(b)(6) provides that relief may be awarded for any reason that justifies
relief. West has not presented a viable reason. In addition to his failure to comply with
Rule 24(c), the issues he wants to litigate cocern the rules that the State of Alaska
should adopt or follow with respect to the State’s own management of wildlife. As West
puts it: “West’s argument is the State of Alaska must follow certain rules when it
considers Intensive Game Management. It must use the same definition of sustained
yield in AS 16.05.205 for predators.”3 There is nothing in his papers which explains
what his interest may be in supporting or opposing the particular federal rules which are
the subject matter of this litigation. West’s reliance on Wilderness Society, et al. v. U.S.

1

Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(c) (emphasis added).

2

Fed. R. Civ. P. 7(a).

3

Doc. 90 at p. 3.

4

Forest Service, et al.4 is inapposite. That case did not deal with a motion to intervene
which failed to comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(c), nor did it concern an attempt to
intervene by a party whose concern was not germane to the existing litigation. Rather,
it addressed and reversed the so-called “federal defendant” rule which prohibited both
private parties and local governments, “from intervening of right on the merits of claims
brought under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969.”5
IV. CONCLUSION
For the reasons above, the motion at docket 89 is DENIED.
DATED this 22nd day of August 2017.

/s/ JOHN W. SEDWICK
SENIOR JUDGE, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

630 F.3d 1173 (9th Cir. 2011) (en banc). West ascribes an erroneous citation to the
case in his memorandum.
5

Id., 630 F.3d at 1176.

5