Animal Legal Defense Fund, Inc. v. Glickman

• Decision Date: 30 October 1996
• Docket Number: Civil Action No. 96-00408.
• Citation: 943 F.Supp. 44
• Parties: 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.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Columbia

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.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

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
                

                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 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 set of proposed rules on August 15, 1990. Id. The Secretary received comments until October 1, 1990, at a total of...