Center for Biological Diversity et al v. Salazar et al
Filing
200
ORDER denying 188 Motion for injunction pending appeal. Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 1/11/2012.(NVO)
1
WO
2
3
4
5
6
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
8
9
Center for Biological Diversity, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
10
11
ORDER
vs.
12
No. CV09-08207-PHX-DGC
Salazar, et al.,
Defendants,
13
14
and
15
Denison Mines (USA) Corp. and Denison
Arizona Strip, LLC,
16
Defendant-Intervenors.
17
18
19
This case arises from the renewed operation of a uranium mine near Grand
20
Canyon National Park. Plaintiffs alleged five claims in their Third Amended Complaint:
21
(1) the U.S. Bureau of Land Management (“BLM”) violated the FLPMA and 1872
22
Mining Law by failing to approve a new plan of operations for uranium exploration and
23
mining activities at the Arizona 1 Mine; (2) alternatively, BLM failed to prepare a
24
supplement to the 1988 Environmental Analysis to consider new circumstances and
25
information relevant to environmental concerns related to the Arizona 1 Mine, in
26
violation of NEPA; (3) BLM failed to prevent the unnecessary and undue degradation of
27
public lands; (4) BLM violated NEPA by relying on a categorical exclusion for the 2008
28
1
free use permit issued to Mohave County to mine and extract gravel from Robinson
2
Wash; and (5) BLM violated NEPA in making its 2008 Bonding Decision for the Arizona
3
1 Mine.
4
injunction (Doc. 36), which the Court denied on June 17, 2010 (Doc. 71). On May 27,
5
2011, the Court granted summary judgment in favor of Defendants and against Plaintiffs
6
on Claims One, Two, Three, and Five. Doc. 163. The Court remanded the categorical
7
exclusion issue in Claim Four to BLM for further consideration. Id. On June 27, 2011,
8
the Court denied Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration of the May 27, 2011 summary
9
judgment order. Doc. 166. Pursuant to the Court’s July 22, 2011 order (Doc. 173), the
10
parties filed simultaneous memoranda addressing their respective positions on the merits
11
of Claim Four. Docs. 178, 179, 180. On October 7, 2011, the Court granted summary
12
judgment in favor of Defendants and against Plaintiffs with respect to Claim Four.
13
Doc. 184.
Doc. 126.
On April 8, 2010, Plaintiffs filed a motion for a preliminary
14
Plaintiffs have appealed the May 27, 2011 summary judgment order (Doc. 163),
15
the June 27, 2011 order denying reconsideration (Doc. 166), and the October 7, 2011
16
summary judgment order (Doc. 184) to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth
17
Circuit. Doc. 186. Plaintiffs have filed a second motion for an injunction in this Court
18
pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 8(a)(1) and Federal Rule of Civil
19
Procedure 62(c), asking the Court to enjoin all mining activities associated with the
20
Arizona 1 Mine pending the outcome of their appeal. Doc. 188. Defendant-Intervenors
21
Denison Mines (USA) Corp. and Denison Arizona Strip, LLC, and Federal Defendants
22
Ken Salazar, Secretary of the Interior, and BLM, have filed oppositions to Plaintiff’s
23
motion. Docs. 195, 196. For the reasons that follow, the Court will deny the motion.
24
Rule 62(c) provides that “[w]hile an appeal is pending from an interlocutory order
25
or final judgment that grants, dissolves, or denies an injunction, the court may suspend,
26
modify, restore, or grant an injunction on terms for bond or other terms that secure the
27
opposing party’s rights[.]” Fed. R. Civ. P. 62(c). A party seeking relief under Rule 62(c)
28
“must establish that he is likely to succeed on the merits, that he is likely to suffer
-2-
1
irreparable harm in the absence of . . . relief, that the balance of equities tip in his favor,
2
and that an injunction is in the public interest.”
3
636 F.3d 1166, 1172 (9th Cir. 2011) (quoting Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council,
4
555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008)). The first two factors of the four-part test – likelihood of success
5
on the merits and irreparable injury – are the most critical and must be satisfied before the
6
second two factors are considered. Nken v. Holder, 129 S.Ct. 1749, 1761 (2009). “It is
7
not enough that the chance of success on the merits be ‘better than negligible.’” Id.
8
(quoting Sofinet v. INS, 188 F.3d 703, 707 (7th Cir. 1999)). By the same token, simply
9
showing some possibility of irreparable injury fails to satisfy the second factor. Id.
10
Ctr. for Food Safety v. Vilsack,
(citing Winter, 129 S.Ct. at 375).
11
The Ninth Circuit has held that the “serious questions” sliding scale approach to
12
injunctions survives Winter when applied as part of the four-element Winter test.
13
Alliance for Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127, 1131-32 (9th Cir. 2011). “In other
14
words, ‘serious questions going to the merits’ and a hardship balance that tips sharply
15
toward the plaintiff can support issuance of an injunction, assuming the other two
16
elements of the Winter test are also met.” Id. at 1132.
17
The Court initially notes that Plaintiffs “maintain that they are likely to succeed on
18
the merits of their claims on appeal,” (Doc. 191, at 4), but do not make any supporting
19
arguments to this effect.
20
questions warranting more deliberative consideration on appeal. Doc. 191, at 4-6. The
21
Ninth Circuit has held, however, that in order to reach the sliding scale analysis, “a
22
moving party must, at an ‘irreducible minimum,’ demonstrate some chance of success on
23
the merits.”
24
(9th Cir. 2007) (quoting Arcamuzi v. Cont’l Air Lines, Inc., 819 F.2d 935, 937
25
(9th Cir. 1987)). When a party has not shown any chance of success on the merits, no
26
further determination of irreparable harm or balancing of hardships is necessary. Id.
27
Even under the “serious questions” approach, Plaintiffs fail to meet the standard required
28
for the Court to grant an injunction because they do not demonstrate any chance of
They argue instead that their claims have raised serious
Global Horizons, Inc. v. U.S. Dept. of Labor, 510 F.3d 1054, 1058
-3-
1
success on the merits.
2
Nor have Plaintiffs demonstrated the existence of serious questions going to the
3
merits. “Serious questions are ‘substantial, difficult, and doubtful, as to make them a fair
4
ground for litigation and thus for more deliberative investigation.’” Republic of the
5
Philippines v. Marcos, 862 F.2d 1355, 1362 (9th Cir. 1988) (quoting Hamilton Watch Co.
6
v. Benrus Watch Co., 206 F.2d 738, 740 (2d Cir. 1952)).
7
Plaintiffs argue on Claims One and Three that the Court’s prior rulings confirm
8
the existence of serious questions because the Court initially characterized BLM’s
9
interpretation of its regulatory scheme as “problematic.” Doc. 191, at 5 (citing Doc. 71,
10
at 5). Despite this initial concern, the Court ultimately concluded that the “obvious
11
import of these provisions is that a plan of operations remains effective for periods of
12
operation before and after temporary closures[.]” Doc. 163, at 7. The Court noted that
13
Plaintiff’s reading of the regulations had several flaws and that the language and intent of
14
the regulations plainly supported BLM’s application of the regulations. Id. at 7-9.
15
On Claim Two, Plaintiffs assert that they are unaware of other cases in which
16
BLM has successfully characterized the actions it took at the Arizona 1 Mine as anything
17
more than monitoring activities that require no NEPA review in an environmental
18
assessment or environmental impact statement. Doc. 191, at 5-6. Plaintiff’s lack of
19
awareness of BLM’s actions in other cases does not persuade the Court that serious
20
questions of the nature contemplated by the Ninth Circuit exist on this claim. See
21
Marcos, 862 F.2d at 1362.
22
On Claim Four, Plaintiffs argue that BLM has never before taken the position that
23
it may lawfully issue a gravel mining permit without considering the use of the gravel as
24
part of the required cumulative impact analysis.
25
Defendant-Intervenors explain that BLM never claimed that it could issue free use
26
permits without performing a cumulative effects analysis under NEPA. Doc. 195, at 9.
27
The Court agreed with BLM’s position that it complied with NEPA by conducting a
28
cumulative effects analysis in this case, and found that BLM’s actions were not arbitrary
-4-
Doc. 191, at 6.
To the contrary,
1
and capricious when it determined that further NEPA analysis was not required.
2
Doc. 184, at 6.
3
On Claim Five, Plaintiffs argue that the question of whether BLM updating a
4
reclamation bond that facilitates uranium ore mining on public land is subject to NEPA is
5
a novel question never previously addressed by the courts. Doc. 191, at 6. However,
6
BLM’s position in this case is consistent with other cases in this Circuit holding that such
7
activities are not major federal actions triggering NEPA requirements. See, e.g., Sierra
8
Club v. Penfold, 857 F.2d 1307 (9th Cir. 1988) (affirming that the BLM’s review of
9
notice mines was not major federal action requiring environmental assessment).
10
In sum, Plaintiffs do not meet the Winter test for injunctions because they have not
11
demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits, or the existence of serious questions
12
going to the merits. The Court therefore need not address Plaintiff’s irreparable harm,
13
balance of hardships, and public interest arguments.
14
15
16
IT IS ORDERED: Plaintiff’s second motion for an injunction pending appeal
(Doc. 188) is denied.
Dated this 11th day of January, 2012.
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-5-
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?