Tyler et al v. Salazar et al

Filing 159

ORDER : IT IS ORDERED THAT: 1.Plaintiffs Motion for Attorneys Fees [Docket No. 112] is DENIED.2.Plaintiffs Substituted Motion to Supplement Record of Motion for Costs and Fees [Docket No. 151] is DENIED AS MOOT. (Written Opinion). Signed by Judge Joan N. Ericksen on July 31, 2012. (slf)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Gerald M. Tyler & Dale K. Lueck,
Plaintiffs,
v.

Civil No. 10-1161 (JNE/LIB)
ORDER

Secretary Interior Ken Salazar in his official
capacity as Secretary of the Interior, U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service, and Rowan Gould in his
official capacity as Acting Director, U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service,
Defendants.
This case is before the Court on a Report and Recommendation issued by the Honorable
Leo I. Brisbois, United States Magistrate Judge, on June 27, 2012. The magistrate judge
recommended that Plaintiffs’ Motion for Attorneys’ Fees be denied and that Plaintiffs’
Substituted Motion to Supplement Record of Motion for Costs and Fees be denied as moot.
Plaintiffs objected and Defendants responded. The Court has conducted a de novo review of the
record. See D. Minn. LR 72.2(b). Based on that review, the Court adopts the Report and
Recommendation [Docket No. 154].
Setting aside the question of whether attorneys’ fees under the Equal Access to Justice
Act (EAJA), 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)(A), or the Endangered Species Act (ESA), 16 U.S.C.
§ 1540(g)(4), are available to pro se plaintiffs, the Court agrees with the magistrate judge that
based on the facts in this case, these Plaintiffs are not entitled to such fees. As discussed in the
well-reasoned Report and Recommendation, Plaintiffs were not a “prevailing party,” nor were
they a catalyst that prompted the Defendants’ actions. Plaintiffs sought to have the Defendants
delist the Western Great Lakes distinct population segment (WGL DPS) gray wolf from the
ESA’s list of threatened and endangered species. Ultimately, Defendants did issue a final rule

1

that delisted the wolves. But, as thoroughly articulated in the Report and Recommendation,
Defendants did not take this action because of Plaintiff’s lawsuit. Rather, Defendants had
voluntarily and independently been attempting to delist the gray wolves for years prior to the
initiation of this lawsuit. The Court agrees with the magistrate judge that “the Plaintiffs’ present
lawsuit was not a significant or important catalyzing factor in the 2011 delisting.”
Based on the files, records, and proceedings herein, and for the reasons articulated in the
Report and Recommendation, IT IS ORDERED THAT:
1.

Plaintiffs’ Motion for Attorneys’ Fees [Docket No. 112] is DENIED.

2.

Plaintiff’s Substituted Motion to Supplement Record of Motion for Costs
and Fees [Docket No. 151] is DENIED AS MOOT.

Dated: July 31, 2012
s/ Joan N. Ericksen
JOAN N. ERICKSEN
United States District Judge

2