Western Watersheds Project v. Forest Service, US

Filing 203

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER denying 182 Motion to Reopen Case. WWP shall alert the Clerk when it files a new action based on its proposed amended complaint in this action, and the Clerk shall assign that case to this Court. All filings in this ca se concerning WWPs motion for preliminary injunction 177 shall be deemed filed in the new case. The previously scheduled hearing for 6/13/2012, in this case shall proceed as scheduled, under the caption of the new case to be filed by WWP. Once the new case is filed, the Court will grant intervention or amicus status to all entities who had that status here and are responding to that motion. Signed by Judge B. Lynn Winmill. (caused to be mailed to non Registered Participants at the addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by (cjm)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO

WESTERN WATERSHEDS PROJECT, et al.,
Case No. 4:07-CV-151-BLW
Plaintiffs,
MEMORANDUM DECISION
AND ORDER

v.
U.S. FOREST SERVICE
Defendant.

INTRODUCTION
The Court has before it a motion to reopen filed by plaintiff WWP. The motion is
fully briefed and at issue. For the reasons explained below, the Court will deny the
motion.
ANALYSIS
This action was originally filed in 2007 by WWP against the Forest Service to stop
sheep grazing in the Hells Canyon and Salmon River regions of the Payette and Nez
Perce National Forests. WWP claimed that domestic sheep were transmitting a fatal
disease to bighorn sheep whose numbers were declining rapidly. WWP sought to enjoin
the Forest Service from allowing grazing on those allotments near the bighorn sheep.
Shortly after this suit was filed, the Forest Service halted grazing on many of the
Memorandum Decision & Order - 1

allotments at issue pending an environmental study.
In 2009, while this case was still pending and awaiting the Forest Service’s
environmental study, WWP sought to file an amended complaint that brought the BLM
into the litigation. WWP challenged the BLM for authorizing grazing on the Partridge
Creek allotment, which was located adjacent to the closed Forest Service allotments. The
Court denied WWP’s motion to file an amended complaint and required them to file a
new case. The Court also ordered that the new case be assigned to the Court, and that all
filings related to WWP’s motion for injunction against the BLM be deemed filed in the
new case. See Memorandum Decision (Dkt. No. 173), see also WWP v BLM CV-09-507BLW (Dkt. No. 4).
In the new case against the BLM, the Court ordered the closure of the Partridge
Creek allotment until the agency finished an SEIS and issued a new grazing decision.
Because that event would not be completed for a substantial time, and would either
foreclose any further litigation or completely change the focus of the arguments, the
Court entered Judgment closing the case, finding that when the SEIS and grazing
decisions were issued “WWP would be free to file a new lawsuit seeking to enjoin the
grazing.” Id. (Dkt. No. 23). The Court also closed the above-entitled action on February
8, 2010.
The Forest Service completed its Final Supplemental Environmental Impact
Statement (SEIS) and Record of Decision (ROD) in 2010. There is no challenge to that
SEIS or ROD. The ROD scheduled a gradual reduction in grazing lands, implementing
Memorandum Decision & Order - 2

closures over the course of three years from 2011 to 2013. In 2012, however, Congress
passed a rider that prohibits the Forest Service from imposing “any new management
restrictions” for the fiscal year 2012 on domestic sheep grazing “in excess of the
management restrictions that existed on July 1, 2011.” The Forest Service interpreted this
legislation to bar it from proceeding with the closures scheduled by the ROD.
WWP now seeks to reopen this case to file an amended complaint that challenges
the Forest Service’s interpretation of the rider. In the proposed amended complaint,
WWP seeks to enjoin grazing on certain Forest Service allotments on the ground that the
Forest Service is misinterpreting the rider and should instead proceed with the closures
scheduled in the ROD. Briefing is proceeding on WWP’s injunction motion and the
Court has set a hearing for June 13, 2012. The hearing date is important because grazing
is due to begin in July.
If WWP is allowed to reopen this case, the resulting litigation will turn entirely on
the legal interpretation of a piece of legislation passed in 2012. This issue did not even
arise until two years had passed from the date this case was closed. It is true that these
circumstances do not require the Court to deny WWP’s motion. Amendments have been
allowed where there was “some relationship” between the original claims and those being
added, Keith v. Volpe, 858 F.2d 467, 474 (9th Cir. 1988); defining the term “relationship”
in its loosest sense, that standard might be met here. But the existence and exercise of
discretion must not be confused – just because the Court has discretion does not
necessarily mean it must be exercised in a certain way.
Memorandum Decision & Order - 3

In fact, the better part of discretion here is to deny the motion. By allowing WWP
to reopen this case and file an amended complaint, the Court would be creating an
entirely new case within the shell of an action over 5 years old. And while there may be
“some relationship” between the complaints, it is very thin at best. Indeed, WWP’s
proposed amended complaint is a new action and should be treated as such. The Court
has the discretion to deny amendments that create a “separate, distinct, and new cause of
action.” Planned Parenthood v. Neely, 130 F.3d 400, 402 (9th Cir. 1997). That is the
case here, and the Court will accordingly deny WWP’s motion to reopen.
As the Court did previously, however, it will order that when WWP files its new
case, that case shall be assigned to this Court because this case and the new filing have so
many factual and legal issues in common. In addition, the previously scheduled hearing
for June 13, 2012, on WWP’s motion for preliminary injunction (relating to its proposed
amended complaint in this case) shall go forward as scheduled. To avoid massive refilings, the Court will consider all filings in this case concerning WWP’s motion for
preliminary injunction to be filed in the new case, and will enter an order to that effect in
the new case when it is filed. In addition, as done previously, the Court will grant
intervention or amicus status to all entities who had that status here and are responding to
that motion.
ORDER
In accordance with the Memorandum Decision set forth above,
NOW THEREFORE IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, that WWP’s motion to reopen
Memorandum Decision & Order - 4

and file supplemental complaint (docket no. 182) is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that WWP shall alert the Clerk when it files a new
action based on its proposed amended complaint in this action, and the Clerk shall assign
that case to this Court.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that all filings in this case concerning WWP’s
motion for preliminary injunction (docket no. 177) shall be deemed filed in the new case.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that the previously scheduled hearing for June 13,
2012, in this case shall proceed as scheduled, under the caption of the new case to be filed
by WWP.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that once the new case is filed, the Court will grant
intervention or amicus status to all entities who had that status here and are responding to
that motion.

DATED: June 4, 2012

Honorable B. Lynn Winmill
Chief U. S. District Judge

Memorandum Decision & Order - 5