Conservation Congress v. United States Forest Service et al

Filing 188

ORDER signed by District Judge John A. Mendez on 8/16/2018 DENYING 175 Motion to Stay. (Washington, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

11
12

CONSERVATION CONGRESS,

13

No.

2:13-cv-1977-JAM-DB

Plaintiff,

14

v.

15

UNITED STATES FOREST SERVICE,
UNITED STATES FISH AND
WILDLIFE SERVICE,

16
17

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
FOR STAY PENDING APPEAL

Defendants,

18

&

19

TRINITY RIVER LUMBER COMPANY,

20

Defendant
Intervenor.

21
22

Conservation Congress (“Plaintiff”) seeks to enjoin

23

commencement of the Smokey Project while its lawsuit remains

24

pending on appeal.

25

motion is denied.1

For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiff’s

26
27
28

This motion was determined to be suitable for decision without
oral argument. E.D. Cal. L.R. 230(g). The hearing was
scheduled for August 7, 2018.
1
1

1
2

I.

BACKGROUND

On February 17, 2017, this Court ruled on the parties’

3

cross-motions for summary judgment.

The Court ruled in favor of

4

Conservation Congress on two of its claims, finding that the

5

United States Forest Service failed to take a “hard look” and

6

failed to develop a reasonable range of alternatives in its

7

analysis of the Smokey Project.

8

and Defendants’ Cross Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 121.

9

The Court granted Defendants’ cross motion for summary judgment

See Order Re Plaintiff’s Motion

10

on Plaintiff’s remaining claims. Id.

Following a round of

11

supplemental briefing, the Court issued its Final Judgment, in

12

which it remanded the NEPA analysis to the United States Forest

13

Service to cure the violations identified in the summary judgment

14

order and enjoined the removal of any trees with 20 inches dbh or

15

greater in implementing the Smokey Project.

16

No. 142.

17

judgment (to dissolve the injunction) on the grounds that the

18

supplemental analysis had been completed.

19

Court granted the motion and dissolved the injunction on March 2,

20

2018.

Final Judgment, ECF

In December of 2017, Defendants moved to amend the

ECF No. 162.

The

ECF No. 171.

21

II.

OPINION

22

A.

Legal Standard

23

Although Plaintiff frames its motion to the Court as a

24

request for a “stay” pending appeal, Plaintiff is asking the

25

Court to enter an injunction pending appeal.

26

556 U.S. 418, 428–29 (2009) (“A stay ‘simply suspend[s] judicial

27

alteration of the status quo,’ while injunctive relief ‘grants

28

judicial intervention that has been withheld by lower courts.’”)
2

See Nken v. Holder,

1

(citation omitted).

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 62(c) makes

2

available an injunction pending appeal.

3

pending appeal is governed by a legal standard like that for a

4

preliminary injunction.

5

Service, 803 F. Supp. 2d 1126, 1129 (E.D. Cal. 2011).

6

to obtain an injunction pending appeal, Plaintiff must establish

7

it “is likely to succeed on the merits, that [it] is likely to

8

suffer irreparable harm in the absence of [] relief, that the

9

balance of equities tips in [its] favor, and that an injunction

A motion for injunction

Conservation Congress v. U.S. Forest
Therefore,

10

is in the public interest.”

11

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

12

may obtain injunctive relief if it shows that there are serious

13

questions going to the merits, the balance of the hardships tip

14

sharply in Plaintiff’s favor, and the other two Winter’s factors

15

are satisfied.

16

F.3d 1211, 1217 (9th Cir. 2017).

17

B.

18

Alternatively, Plaintiff

See Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. Pena, 865

Analysis
1.

19

See Winter v. Nat. Res. Def.

Merits

The Court has carefully evaluated Plaintiff’s challenges to

20

the USFS’s and FWS’s analyses and conclusions related to the

21

Smokey Project at each stage of this litigation.

22

analysis of these claims is set forth in its Order Re Plaintiff’s

23

Motion and Defendants’ Cross Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No.

24

121, Final Judgment, ECF No. 142, and Order Granting Defendants’

25

Motion to Amend the Judgment and Dissolve the Injunction, ECF No.

26

162.

27

Court’s findings or analysis that would cause the Court to

28

question the validity of the conclusions it has already drawn.

Its detailed

Plaintiff has not identified any critical errors in the

3

1

See Mot. at 9–20.

2

likely to succeed on the merits of its claims.

3

The Court therefore does not find Plaintiff is

At most, the issues Plaintiff reiterates in its motion might

4

raise serious questions going to the merits.

5

the equitable factors in this case weigh against granting the

6

extraordinary relief requested, the Court need not make a finding

7

on these challenges.

8
9

2.

However, because

Irreparable Harm

The Court previously entered a limited injunction in this

10

case after finding that the procedural harm Plaintiff suffered—

11

namely, the agency’s failure to address or consider a large

12

diameter cap during its NEPA analysis—coupled with the permanent

13

removal of trees that might otherwise be protected by such a cap

14

consisted irreparable harm.

15

Defendants and Intervenor point out, the Court found USFS’s

16

supplemental NEPA process ameliorated the procedural harm.

17

Def. Opp’n at 7; Int. Opp’n at 17–18; Order Granting Defendants’

18

Motion to Amend the Judgment and Dissolve the Injunction at 22.

19

The Court reiterates that finding here: the USFS’s additional

20

post-judgment analysis cured the identified procedural harm.

21

Final Judgment at 4-5.

As

See

Plaintiff’s motion therefore turns on irreparable harm to

22

the environment, specifically as it relates to the Northern

23

Spotted Owl.

24

extinction to the species to meet its burden.

25

Fed’n v. Nat’l Marine Fisheries Serv., 886 F.3d 803, 819 (9th

26

Cir. 2018).

27

to the ‘overall population.’”

28

F. Supp. 2d 1205, 1210 (D. Mont. 2009); see Pac. Coast Fed’n of

Plaintiff need not demonstrate a threat of
Nat’l Wildlife

But, “irreparable injury requires harm ‘significant’
Defs. of Wildlife v. Salazar, 812

4

1

Fishermen’s Ass’ns v. Gutierrez, 606 F. Supp. 2d 1195, 1254 n. 12

2

(E.D. Cal. 2008) (“Other district courts have issued injunctive

3

relief where an agency action would cause harm to a small number

4

of individual species’ members, but always under circumstances in

5

which the loss of those individuals would be significant for the

6

species as a whole.”).

7

Through its cited evidence, Plaintiff has shown a

8

possibility of harm to several NSOs that live in Smokey Project

9

area.

However, in the face of competing evidence, the Court

10

cannot conclude that the stated harm is irreparable.

11

Plaintiff has not shown a likelihood of irreparable harm to the

12

species.

13

warrant relief, the harm inflicted must still befall the species

14

and not only individual members.

15
16

Further,

Although an extinction level threat is not necessary to

3.

Balance of Equities and Public Interest

To obtain injunctive relief, Plaintiff must establish that

17

the balance of the equities and public interest weigh in favor of

18

granting such relief.

19

likelihood of success on the merits, Plaintiff must establish

20

serious questions going to the merits and that the balance of the

21

equities tip sharply in Plaintiff’s favor.

22

Wild Rockies v. Pena, 865 F.3d at 1217.

23

Where, as here, Plaintiff has not shown a

See Alliance for the

Plaintiff does not address these two factors in its moving

24

papers.

It mentions, in passing, that there is a “strong public

25

interest in the preservation of the little remaining late

26

successional and old growth forest habitat in northwestern

27

forests and the lack of any countervailing non-monetary interest

28

in the immediate harvest of commercial timber in the Smokey
5

1

Project area.”

See Mot. at 22.

2

equitable factors fails to address the overarching aim of the

3

project: reducing the risk of fire hazards and restoring forest

4

stands in the Smokey Project area.

5

as well as the arguments and evidence cited in the two

6

Oppositions, the Court does not find that the equitable factors

7

weigh in favor of granting relief.

8

entitled to the extraordinary relief it seeks.

9
10
11
12
13

III.

This cursory treatment of these

Because of this deficiency,

Plaintiff has not shown it is

ORDER

For the reasons set forth above, the Court DENIES
Plaintiff’s Motion for Stay Pending Appeal.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

August 16, 2018

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
6