Center for Biological Diversity, et al. v. Skalski, et al.

Filing 85

ORDER signed by Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr on 11/7/14 DENYING 71 Motion for Injunction. (Manzer, C)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12
13

CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL
DIVERSITY, EARTH ISLAND
INSTITUTE and CALIFORNIA
CHAPARRAL INSTITUTE,
Plaintiffs,

14
v.

15
16
17
18
19

22
23
24
25
26

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’
REQUEST FOR AN INJUNCTION
PENDING APPEAL2*

JEANNE HIGGINS, in her
official capacity as Forest
Supervisor for the Stanislaus
National Forest, and UNITED
STATES FOREST SERVICE, an
agency of the Department of
Agriculture
Defendants,

20
21

No. 1-14-CV-01382-GEB-GSA

AND
TUOLOMNE COUNTY, AMERICAN
FOREST RESOURCE COUNCIL,
CALIFORNIA FORESTRY
ASSOCIATION, WILLIAM AND MARY
CROOK, SIERRA PACIFIC
INDUSTRIES, YOSEMITE
STANISLAUS SOLUTIONS, and
CALIFORNIA FARM BUREAU
FEDERATION

27
28
1

1

DefendantIntervenors,1

2
3
4
On

5

October

28,

2014,

Plaintiffs

filed

a

“NOTICE

OF

6

MOTION AND MOTION FOR ISSUANCE OF AN INJUNCTION PENDING APPEAL,”

7

and an “APPLICATION TO SHORTEN TIME ON MOTION FOR INJUNCTION

8

PENDING APPEAL.” Plaintiffs’ application for an order shortening

9

time for the briefing on their motion was granted (ECF No. 81,)

10

and the briefs have been considered.
Plaintiffs

11

that

an

argue

in

injunction

their

appeal

avoid

likely

motion

13

irreparable harm” in Stanislaus National Forest that would be

14

endured “from the removal of the preferred foraging habitat for

15

resident California spotted owls. . . [as a consequence of] the

16

Nevergreen,

17

Issuance of Inj. Pending Appeal (“Mot.”) 2:11-15, ECF No. 71.)
Plaintiffs

18

Fork

and

required

pending

12

Double

is

injunction

Triple

previously

A

moved

“to

timber

for

sales”.

a

(Mot.

preliminary

19

injunction on September 19, 2014 (ECF No. 52,) which was denied

20

in an order issued on October 7, 2014. (Order Den. Pls.’ Mot.

21

Prelim.

22

Injunction Pending Appeal is based on “documents already on file

Inj.,

ECF

No.

65.)

Plaintiffs

current

Motion

for

an

23
24
25
26
27
28

1

Defendant Susan Skalski seeks to substitute as a party Jeanne
Higgins in her official capacity as Forest Supervisor for the Stanislaus
National Forest pursuant to Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 25(d). When a public officer
who is a party to an action in her official capacity “ceases to hold office
while the action is pending,” her “successor is automatically substituted as a
party.” Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 25(d). Therefore, Jeanne Higgins in her official
capacity as Forest Supervisor for the Stanislaus National Forest is
substituted for defendant Skalski in her official capacity as Forest
Supervisor for the Stanislaus National Forest.

2

1

with th[e] Court” and does not raise any argument that was not

2

addressed in their prior motion for an injunction. (Mot. 4:1.)

3

The legal standard applicable to Plaintiffs’ Motion for

4

an Injunction Pending Appeal is the same as the standard applied

5

to

6

Conservation Council v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng’rs, 472 F.3d 1097,

7

1100 (9th Cir. 2006); Humane Soc. of U.S. v. Gutierrez, 558 F.3d

8

896, 897 (9th Cir. 2009) (citing Winter v. Natural Res. Council,

9

555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008)).

Plaintiffs’

10

Since

Motion

for

Plaintiffs’

Preliminary

Motion

for

Injunction.

an

See

Injunction

Alaska

Pending

11

Appeal presents no new argument or evidence and is reviewed under

12

the same legal standard as their prior motion for a preliminary

13

injunction, the instant motion is denied for the reasons stated

14

in the October 7, 2014 order denying Plaintiffs’ motion for a

15

preliminary injunction.

16

Dated:

November 7, 2014

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3