Californians for Alternatives to Toxics et al v USFWS et al

Filing 98

ORDER DISSOLVING INJUNCTION signed by Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr on 5/13/13. (Manzer, C)

1
2
3
4
5
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
6
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
7
8
9
10
11

CALIFORNIANS FOR ALTERNATIVES TO
TOXICS, a non-profit
corporation; WILDERNESS WATCH, a
non-profit corporation; THE
FRIENDS OF SILVER KING CREEK, a
non-profit corporation; and
LAUREL AMES, an individual,

12

Plaintiffs,*

13
14

v.

17

UNITED STATES FISH AND WILDLIFE
SERVICE; ALEXANDRA PITTS, in her
official capacity; UNITED STATES
FOREST SERVICE; and WILLIAM A.
DUNKELBERGER, in his official
capacity,

18

Defendants.
________________________________

15
16

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

2:10-cv-01477-GEB-CMK
ORDER DISSOLVING INJUNCTION**

19
20

Defendants move to dissolve the permanent injunction issued on

21

September 6, 2011, which enjoined Defendants from “implementation of the

22

Paiute Cutthroat Trout Restoration Project,” based on the finding that

23

Defendants violated the Wilderness Act of 1964, 16 U.S.C. § 1133(c), by

24
25
26
27
28

*

The caption has been amended to reflect the dismissal with
prejudice of Plaintiff Ann McCampbell’s claims under Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) on May 9, 2013, when the parties filed
the dismissal stipulation.
**

argument.

This matter is deemed suitable for decision without oral
E.D. Cal. R. 230(g).
1

1

“failing to consider the potential extinction of native invertebrate

2

species as a factor relevant to the decision of whether the extent of

3

the [use of prohibited motorized equipment] was necessary.” Cal. for

4

Alts. to Toxics v. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Serv., 814 F. Supp. 2d 992,

5

1024, 1019 (E.D. Cal. 2011).

6

opposition in response to the motion.

Plaintiffs have filed a statement of non-

7

Defendants explain in their motion that since this injunction

8

issued, Defendants have issued a revised Minimum Requirements Decision

9

Guide that addresses what should have been considered. Defendants’

10

unopposed motion reveals that Defendants have met the requirements of

11

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(5) for relief from a final

12

judgment by showing that the injunction should be dissolved. Therefore,

13

Defendants’ motion is granted, and the injunction is dissolved.

14

Dated:

May 13, 2013

15
16
17

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.
Senior United States District Judge

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2