Citizens for Better Forestry v. U.S. Dept. of Agr., 07-16077.

• Decision Date: 09 June 2009
• Docket Number: No. 07-16077.,07-16077.
• Citation: 567 F.3d 1128
• Parties: CITIZENS FOR BETTER FORESTRY; The Ecology Center; Gifford Pinchot Task Force; Kettle Range Conservation Group; Idaho Sporting Congress; Friends of the Clearwater; Utah Environmental Congress; Cascadia Wildlands Project; Klamath Siskiyou Wildlands Center; Southern Appalachian Biodiversity Project Headwaters; The Lands Council, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE; United States Forest Service, Defendants-Appellants.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit

567 F.3d 1128

CITIZENS FOR BETTER FORESTRY; The Ecology Center; Gifford Pinchot Task Force; Kettle Range Conservation Group; Idaho Sporting Congress; Friends of the Clearwater; Utah Environmental Congress; Cascadia Wildlands Project; Klamath Siskiyou Wildlands Center; Southern Appalachian Biodiversity Project Headwaters; The Lands Council, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE; United States Forest Service, Defendants-Appellants.

No. 07-16077.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted October 22, 2008.

Filed June 9, 2009.

Ronald J. Tenpas, Assistant Attorney General; Andrew A. Smith, Andrew C. Mergen, and Robert J. Lundman (argued), United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for defendants-appellants.

Peter M.K. Frost, Western Environmental Law Center, Eugene, OR, for the plaintiffs-appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, Martin J. Jenkins, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. CV-01-00728-MJJ.

Before: PROCTER HUG, JR., MELVIN BRUNETTI and RICHARD R. CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.

Opinion by Judge CLIFTON; Dissent by Judge HUG.

CLIFTON, Circuit Judge:

The United States Department of Agriculture ("USDA"), which includes the Forest Service, appeals the district court's award of attorneys' fees to Citizens for Better Forestry and eleven other environmental groups (collectively, "Citizens") under the Equal Access to Justice Act ("EAJA"), 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)(A). In the underlying action, Citizens sought declaratory and injunctive relief against the USDA for its promulgation of a new national forest management rule. We reversed the district court's dismissal of Citizens' suit on standing and ripeness grounds and remanded for a ruling on Citizens' motion for injunctive relief. Before the district court could reconsider the motion, the USDA withdrew the contested rule. Citizens then stipulated to dismiss its case and moved for attorneys' fees. Because Citizens received no relief from any court, it does not qualify as a "prevailing party" under the EAJA and, therefore, is not entitled to fees.

I. Background

On February 16, 2001, Citizens brought suit in the Northern District of California, alleging that the USDA had committed procedural violations of the National Environmental Policy Act ("NEPA") and the Endangered Species Act ("ESA") and substantive violations of the National Forest Management Act in promulgating a new rule (the "2000 Final Rule") governing the Forest Service's administration and management of National Forest System lands. Citizens sought declaratory and injunctive relief. After Citizens filed suit, the USDA reviewed the 2000 Final Rule and announced in December 2001 that a new rule would replace it. Citizens agreed, in turn, to stay its substantive claims, but moved for partial summary judgment on its procedural claims. The USDA filed a cross-motion for partial summary judgment, alleging that Citizens lacked standing to challenge the 2000 Final Rule and that its claims were not ripe for adjudication. The district court granted the USDA's motion on both grounds and denied Citizens' motions for partial summary judgment and injunctive relief. Citizens brought an immediate appeal of the district court's denial of its motion for injunctive relief.

This court reversed, holding that Citizens had standing to assert the NEPA and ESA claims and that the case was ripe for review. Citizens for Better Forestry v. U.S. Dep't of Agriculture, 341 F.3d 961, 965 (9th Cir.2003). In our standing analysis, we held that the USDA had violated NEPA by depriving Citizens of its right to comment on the relevant environmental documents. Id. at 970. The opinion concluded: "We do not reach the merits of Citizens' appeal on their motion for injunctive relief, however, because the district court did not reach the merits of the motion." Id. at 978. Ultimately, we reversed and remanded the case to the district court "to determine whether injunctive relief is appropriate." Id. at 965.

After we issued our decision, the USDA withdrew the 2000 Final Rule and issued a new final rule. Citizens then dismissed its case and moved for attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the ESA and the EAJA. A magistrate judge issued a Report and Recommendation concluding that Citizens' motion should be granted under the EAJA, but denied under the ESA. After the USDA objected, the district court reviewed the record de novo and issued an order adopting the Report and Recommendation without change. Citizens for Better v. U.S. Dep't of Agriculture, 497 F.Supp.2d 1062, 1065 (N.D.Cal.2007). The district court awarded attorneys' fees to Citizens under the EAJA because it held that Citizens was a "prevailing party" on its NEPA claim, as required for an award of fees. Id. at 1072. The court reasoned: "Given the dispositive and binding nature of the Ninth Circuit's finding, leaving no discretion to the District Court, the panel's ruling was functionally equivalent to a declaratory judgment," a form of relief sufficient to confer prevailing party status under the EAJA. Id. at 1073. The USDA timely filed a notice of appeal.

II. Discussion

The USDA argues that the district court incorrectly held that Citizens was a prevailing party in its lawsuit against the USDA and, as a result, erred in awarding Citizens attorneys' fees under the EAJA. The USDA contends that Citizens cannot be a prevailing party because the latter "did not secure any relief" from either the district court or this court. Citizens responds by disputing the USDA's assertion that we did not afford declaratory relief to Citizens; it argues that this court went beyond a mere jurisdictional ruling to reach the merits of Citizens' NEPA claim. Our favorable ruling on the merits in conjunction with a remand with instructions to the district court indicate, Citizens contends, that it was a prevailing party under the EAJA.

We review for abuse of discretion the district court's decision to award fees under the EAJA. United States v. 2659 Roundhill Dr., 283 F.3d 1146, 1151 n. 6 (9th Cir.2002). The decision as to whether a party has prevailed is a finding of fact "that will be set aside if clearly erroneous or if based on an incorrect legal standard." Oregon Environmental Council v. Kunzman, 817 F.2d 484, 496 (9th Cir.1987). We review de novo the legal analysis underlying the district court's finding that Citizens was a prevailing party. See V.S. ex rel. A.O. v. Los Gatos-Saratoga Joint Union High Sch. Dist., 484 F.3d 1230, 1232 (9th Cir.2007).

The EAJA directs courts to award attorneys' fees to "a prevailing party" in qualifying civil actions against the United States. 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)(A).¹ In Buckhannon Board & Care Home, Inc. v. West Virginia Department of Health & Human Resources, the Supreme Court looked to Black's Law Dictionary to define "prevailing party" as "[a] party in whose favor a judgment is rendered, regardless of the amount of damages awarded." 532 U.S. 598, 603, 121 S.Ct. 1835, 149 L.Ed.2d 855 (2001) (alteration in original) (quoting Black's Law Dictionary 1145 (7th ed.1999)).² Of particular relevance to the present case is the definition of "render," given the dispute between the USDA and Citizens over whether this court entered a declaratory judgment for Citizens. When referring to an action taken by a judge, "render" is defined by the authority relied upon by the Court in Buckhannon as "to deliver formally." Black's Law Dictionary 1322 (8th ed.2004). Taken together, the definitions of "prevailing party" and "render" suggest that a party must have a judgment or something similar formally delivered in its favor to be considered "prevailing."

While the Buckhannon Court did not have reason to address how formal a judgment must be, it made clear that, in any event, a party must receive "some relief" from a court to be considered "prevailing." 532 U.S. at 603, 121 S.Ct. 1835. "Our `[r]espect for ordinary language requires that a plaintiff receive at least some relief on the merits of his claim before he can be said to prevail.'" Id. (alteration in original) (quoting Hewitt v. Helms, 482 U.S. 755, 760, 107 S.Ct. 2672, 96 L.Ed.2d 654 (1987)). An award of attorneys' fees must be preceded by a "`material alteration of the legal relationship of the parties.'" Id. at 604, 121 S.Ct. 1835 (quoting Texas State Teachers Ass'n v. Garland Independent Sch. Dist., 489 U.S. 782, 792-93, 109 S.Ct. 1486, 103 L.Ed.2d 866 (1989)). Only such alterations that obtain "the necessary judicial imprimatur on the change" will suffice to confer "prevailing party" status upon the plaintiff. Id. at 605, 121 S.Ct. 1835.

In a previous decision, the Supreme Court held that a plaintiff was not a prevailing party when he "obtained no relief," only a "favorable judicial statement of law in the course of litigation that result[ed] in judgment against the plaintiff." Hewitt, 482 U.S. at 760, 763, 107 S.Ct. 2672. In Hewitt v. Helms, the Third Circuit had instructed the district court to enter summary judgment for the plaintiff, a state prisoner, on the grounds that the defendant prison officials had violated the Constitution, "unless the defendants could establish an immunity defense." Id. at 758, 107 S.Ct. 2672 (emphasis added). In subsequent proceedings, the defendants succeeded in establishing qualified immunity and were granted summary judgment themselves. Id. The Court found that the Third Circuit's favorable instruction did not constitute "a form of judicial relief," such as a declaratory judgment, and therefore was insufficient to confer prevailing party status on the plaintiff. Id. at 760, 107 S.Ct. 2672. Consequently, though the plaintiff had obtained a favorable determination on the issue of whether there had been a constitutional violation, he ultimately received no relief from the district court and therefore was not entitled to attorneys' fees. Id.

The Supreme Court provided two "examples"...