Animal Legal Defense Fund, Inc. v. Glickman, Civil Action No. 96-00408.

CourtUnited States District Courts. United States District Court (Columbia)
Writing for the CourtCharles R. Richey
Citation943 F.Supp. 44
PartiesANIMAL LEGAL DEFENSE FUND, INC.; Roseann Circelli; Mary Eagan; Marc Jurnove; and Audrey Rahn, Plaintiffs, v. Daniel GLICKMAN, Secretary of Agriculture; Dr. Lonnie King, Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service; and the United States Department of Agriculture, Defendants.
Decision Date30 October 1996
Docket NumberCivil Action No. 96-00408.
943 F.Supp. 44
ANIMAL LEGAL DEFENSE FUND, INC.; Roseann Circelli; Mary Eagan; Marc Jurnove; and Audrey Rahn, Plaintiffs,
v.
Daniel GLICKMAN, Secretary of Agriculture; Dr. Lonnie King, Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service; and the United States Department of Agriculture, Defendants.
Civil Action No. 96-00408.
United States District Court, District of Columbia.
October 30, 1996.

Page 45

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Page 46

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Page 47

Valerie J. Stanley, Animal Legal Defense Fund, Rockville, MD, and Katherine Meyer, Meyer & Glitzenstein, Washington, DC, for plaintiffs.

Thomas Millet, Kevin M. Simpson and Sherri Wattenbarger, Department of Justice, Civil Division; along with whom Frank W. Hunger, Assistant Attorney General, and Eric H. Holder, United States Attorney, appeared on the briefs; and along with whom Colleen Carroll, Department of Agriculture, appeared of counsel, for defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

CHARLES R. RICHEY, District Judge.


 TABLE OF CONTENTS
                 INTRODUCTION ............................................................... 48
                 BACKGROUND ................................................................. 49
                 DISCUSSION ................................................................. 51
                 I. THE COURT SHALL DENY THE DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS
                 FOR LACK OF STANDING BECAUSE THE PLAINTIFFS HAVE CONSTITUTIONAL
                 AND STATUTORY STANDING TO CHALLENGE THE
                 AGENCY'S ACTIONS AND OMISSIONS ........................................ 51
                 A. The ALDF Lacks Standing To Sue On Behalf Of Its Members .............. 52
                 B. The ALDF Has Constitutional And Statutory Standing To Sue In Its Own
                 Capacity With Respect To Count IV .................................. 53
                 C. Roseann Circelli, Mary Eagan, And Marc Jurnove Have Constitutional And
                 Statutory Standing To Sue With Respect To Count I-III; Marc Jurnove
                 And Audrey Rahn Have Constitutional And Statutory Standing To Sue
                 With Respect To Count V ............................................ 54
                 1. The Individual Plaintiffs Have Alleged Injury In Fact .............. 54
                

Page 48

 2. The Injury To The Individual Plaintiffs Is Traceable To The Defendants'
                 Actions Or Omissions ................................................ 56
                 3. The Injury To The Individual Plaintiffs Will Be Redressed By The
                 Relief Sought .................................................. 56
                 4. The Injury To The Individual Plaintiffs Is Within The Zone Of Interests
                 To Be Protected By The AWA ..................................... 56
                 II. THE COURT SHALL GRANT THE DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO STRIKE
                 PLAINTIFFS' EXHIBITS ........................................................... 57
                 A. The Plaintiffs' Extra-Record Exhibits Will Not Be Admitted Under The
                 "Predictions" Exception In Support Of Their Challenges To The Agency's
                 Regulations ................................................................ 57
                 B. The Plaintiffs' Extra-Record Exhibits Shall Not Be Admitted In Support
                 Of Their Agency Action Unreasonably Delayed Claim Or Their Non-enforcement
                 Claim ..................................................................... 58
                 III. THE COURT SHALL GRANT THE PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR PARTIAL
                 SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND SHALL DENY THE DEFENDANTS' MOTION
                 FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT WITH RESPECT TO COUNTS I-IV ........................... 59
                 A. The Court Shall Enter Judgment In Favor Of The Plaintiffs on Count I; 9
                 C.F.R. § 3.81 Violates The APA Because It Fails To Set Standards
                 Including Minimum Requirements, As Mandated By The AWA ................. 59
                 B. The Court Shall Enter Judgment In Favor Of The Plaintiffs On Count II;
                 The Agency's Failure To Promulgate Standards For A Physical Environment
                 Adequate To Promote The Psychological Well-Being Of Primates
                 Constitutes Agency Action Unlawfully Withheld And Unreasonably Delayed
                 In Violation Of The APA ................................................ 59
                 C. The Court Shall Enter Judgment In Favor Of The Plaintiffs On Count III;
                 The Agency's Failure To Issue A Regulation Promoting The Social
                 Grouping Of Nonhuman Primates Is Arbitrary, Capricious, And An
                 Abuse Of Discretion In Violation Of The APA ............................ 60
                 D. The Court Shall Enter Judgment In Favor Of The Plaintiffs On Count IV;
                 The Agency's Regulation Requiring "Plans" To Be Kept On-Site Violated
                 The Notice And Comment Provisions Of The APA ........................... 61
                 IV. THE COURT SHALL GRANT THE DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS
                 WITH RESPECT TO COUNT V BECAUSE IT IS A NON-JUSTICIABLE
                 CLAIM ..................................................................... 62
                 CONCLUSION ...................................................................... 64
                
INTRODUCTION

This action was brought pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act ("APA"), 5 U.S.C. § 551 et seq., by the Animal Legal Defense Fund ("ALDF") and four individuals, to challenge (1) regulations promulgated by the agency1 under the Animal Welfare Act ("AWA"), 7 U.S.C. § 2131 et seq.; and (2) the agency's abdication of its statutory duties to enforce the AWA.

This Court previously held that the challenged regulations violated both the AWA and the APA. See Animal Legal Defense Fund, Inc. v. Secretary of Agriculture, 813 F.Supp. 882 (D.D.C.1993). However, the Court's decision was subsequently vacated when the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled that the plaintiffs had not demonstrated that they had standing to pursue their claims. See Animal Legal Defense Fund, Inc. v. Espy, 29 F.3d 720 (D.C.Cir.1994).

In the present case, the plaintiffs have moved for summary judgment on Counts IIV of their Amended Complaint. The plaintiffs assert that: (1) the agency's regulation governing the psychological enrichment of primates violates the plain language of the AWA and thus, pursuant to the APA, must be set aside as contrary to law; (2) the agency's failure to set standards for the psychological

Page 49

enrichment of primates constitutes agency action unlawfully withheld and unreasonably delayed in violation of the APA; (3) the agency's failure to issue a regulation promoting the social grouping of primates violates the APA because it is arbitrary and capricious; and (4) the agency's regulation that shields plans from the public violates the Notice and Comment provisions of the APA. The defendants have cross-moved for summary judgment on Counts I-IV.

In Count V of their Amended Complaint, the plaintiffs contend that the agency's practices and policies amount to a complete abdication of its statutory responsibility to enforce the AWA. The plaintiffs rely on this Circuit's en banc decision in Adams v. Richardson, 480 F.2d 1159 (D.C.Cir.1973). With respect to Count V, the plaintiffs assert the need for discovery. The defendants move for dismissal of Count V on the basis that it is a "non-justiciable" claim, that is, that it impermissibly seeks judicial review of matters committed to agency discretion by law under the APA. Furthermore, the defendants have moved for dismissal of Counts IV on the ground that the plaintiffs lack standing. Finally, the defendants have moved to strike various exhibits filed by the plaintiffs in support of their summary judgment motion on the ground that those exhibits are not a part of the administrative record.

Based on the pleadings, the entire record herein, and the law applicable thereto, and for the reasons expressed below, the Court shall deny the defendants' Motion to Dismiss for lack of standing. The Court shall grant the defendants' Motion to Strike. The Court shall grant summary judgment in favor of the plaintiffs on Counts I-IV of the Complaint and shall grant the defendants' Motion to Dismiss Count V of the Complaint. Finally, the Court shall remand to the agency for rulemaking proceedings consistent with the following Memorandum Opinion and Order.

BACKGROUND

In 1985, Congress passed the Improved Standards for Laboratory Animals Act, which amended the Animal Welfare Act, 7 U.S.C. §§ 2131-59 ("AWA"), and provides for the humane treatment of animals. Specifically, the AWA now requires the Secretary to "promulgate standards to govern the humane handling, care, treatment and transportation of animals by dealers, research facilities, and exhibitors2." 7 U.S.C. § 2143(a)(1). The standards must include "minimum requirements for a physical environment adequate to promote the psychological well-being of primates ([monkeys])." 7 U.S.C. § 2143(a)(2)(B); see 7 U.S.C. § 2132(g).

Subsequent to the passage of the 1985 amendments to the AWA, the agency waited 6 years to publish final regulations. As hereinafter explained, the agency seriously delayed undertaking its responsibilities pursuant to the AWA and, ultimately, failed to live up to its obligations.

Specifically, in response to its mandate from Congress, the agency, on March 7, 1986, published a notice in the Federal Register stating its intent to promulgate standards and regulations for the care and treatment of animals. AR 1; 51 Fed.Reg. 7950. The Notice solicited information and comments on that proposed rulemaking. On March 15, 1989, the agency finally published a set of proposed rules. AR 568; 54 Fed.Reg. 10897. The agency solicited comments on the proposed rules for 120 days and received a total of 10,686 comments in time for consideration. AR 1368; 55 Fed.Reg. 33448. The number of comments received serves to illustrate the importance of this matter, if nothing else. Rather than respond to these comments, however, the agency instead published a second

Page 50

set of proposed rules on August 15, 1990. Id. The Secretary received comments until October 1, 1990, at a total of 11,932 comments. AR 1878; 56 Fed.Reg. 6426. Finally, the agency published its regulations on February 15, 1991, which became effective on March 18, 1991. Id.

Instead of setting standards, as the AWA directs, the agency's regulation at 9 C.F.R. § 3.81 provides that "Dealers, exhibitors, and research...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 practice notes
  • Animal Legal Defense Fund, Inc. v. Glickman, Nos. 97-5009
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (District of Columbia)
    • September 1, 1998
    ...suffered to his aesthetic interest in observing animals living under humane conditions. See Animal Legal Defense Fund, Inc. v. Glickman, 943 F.Supp. 44, 49 (D.D.C.1996) (granting summary judgment to plaintiffs on all legal claims except one that plaintiffs have not appealed; defendants did ......
  • Animal Legal Defense Fund v. Veneman, No. 04-15788.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)
    • November 22, 2006
    ...here. The agency proposed the Draft Policy in response to the district court's ruling in Animal Legal Defense Fund, Inc. v. Glickman, 943 F.Supp. 44 (D.D.C.1996), that the regulations it had adopted were insufficiently specific. After that ruling was reversed, see Glickman II, 204 F.3d at 2......
  • Animal Legal Defense Fund, Inc. v. Glickman, Nos. 97-5009
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (District of Columbia)
    • March 10, 1998
    ...of governing statute, the Animal Welfare Act (AWA). The United States District Court for the District of Columbia, Charles R. Richey, J., 943 F.Supp. 44, held that regulation was invalid. USDA appealed. The Court of Appeals, Sentelle, Circuit Judge, held that plaintiffs lacked constitutiona......
  • Animal Legal Fund v.Glickman, Nos. 97-5031
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (District of Columbia)
    • February 1, 2000
    ...delegation of his legal responsibility. The district court agreed. Animal Legal Defense Fund v. Glickman ("ALDF"), 943 F. Supp. 44 (D.D.C. 1996). It held that the regulation "fails to set standards," by which the district court meant engineering standards, and that "......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
5 cases
  • Animal Legal Defense Fund v. Veneman, No. 04-15788.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)
    • November 22, 2006
    ...here. The agency proposed the Draft Policy in response to the district court's ruling in Animal Legal Defense Fund, Inc. v. Glickman, 943 F.Supp. 44 (D.D.C.1996), that the regulations it had adopted were insufficiently specific. After that ruling was reversed, see Glickman II, 204 F.3d at 2......
  • Animal Legal Defense Fund, Inc. v. Glickman, Nos. 97-5009
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (District of Columbia)
    • September 1, 1998
    ...suffered to his aesthetic interest in observing animals living under humane conditions. See Animal Legal Defense Fund, Inc. v. Glickman, 943 F.Supp. 44, 49 (D.D.C.1996) (granting summary judgment to plaintiffs on all legal claims except one that plaintiffs have not appealed; defendants did ......
  • Animal Legal Defense Fund, Inc. v. Glickman, Nos. 97-5009
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (District of Columbia)
    • March 10, 1998
    ...of governing statute, the Animal Welfare Act (AWA). The United States District Court for the District of Columbia, Charles R. Richey, J., 943 F.Supp. 44, held that regulation was invalid. USDA appealed. The Court of Appeals, Sentelle, Circuit Judge, held that plaintiffs lacked constitutiona......
  • Animal Legal Fund v.Glickman, Nos. 97-5031
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (District of Columbia)
    • February 1, 2000
    ...to an impermissible delegation of his legal responsibility. The district court agreed. Animal Legal Defense Fund v. Glickman ("ALDF"), 943 F. Supp. 44 (D.D.C. 1996). It held that the regulation "fails to set standards," by which the district court meant engineering standards, and that "the ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT