Fund for Animals v. Williams

• Decision Date: 03 February 2004
• Docket Number: No. CIV.A.01-2078(RMU).,CIV.A.01-2078(RMU).
• Citation: 311 F.Supp.2d 1
• Parties: The FUND FOR ANIMALS et al., Plaintiffs, v. Steven WILLIAMS et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Columbia

Page 1

311 F.Supp.2d 1

The FUND FOR ANIMALS et al., Plaintiffs, v. Steven WILLIAMS et al., Defendants.

No. CIV.A.01-2078(RMU).

United States District Court, District of Columbia.

February 3, 2004.

Jonathan Russell Lovvorn, Meyer & Glitzenstein, Washington, DC, for Plaintiffs.

Lori Caramanian, U.S. Department of Justice, Denver, CO, Mauricia Maria Magdalena Baca, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

GRANTING THE DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO ALTER OR AMEND THE COURT'S JUDGMENT

URBINA, District Judge.

I. INTRODUCTION

This matter comes before the court on the defendants' motion to alter or amend the court's judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e). The plaintiffs are the Fund for Animals, the Biodiversity Legal Foundation, the Utah Environmental Congress, the Humane Society of the United States, and two wildlife enthusiasts (collectively, "the plaintiffs"). They brought suit against the Fish and Wildlife Service ("the Service") and the Department of the Interior (collectively, "the defendants") claiming, inter alia, that the defendants violated the Endangered Species Act ("ESA"), 16 U.S.C. §§ 1531 et seq., by failing to adequately explain the Service's refusal to list the Tri-State Trumpeter swan on an emergency basis as an endangered or threatened species. After the court granted summary judgment to the plaintiffs on the ESA claim, the defendants filed the pending motion on the grounds that the ESA claim became moot during the pendency of the action. Because interim events have rendered the plaintiffs' ESA claim moot, the court grants the defendants' motion and alters its judgment accordingly.

II. BACKGROUND¹

The Trumpeter swan (Cygnus buccinator) is the largest native waterfowl in North America, and one of the rarest North American waterfowl species. Fund for Animals v. Williams, 246 F.Supp.2d 27, 29 (D.D.C.2003). Eliminated from 99 percent of its historic range by mid-century, the only remaining indigenous wild breeding Trumpeter swan population in the contiguous United States today consists of a mostly non-migratory population in the Greater Yellowstone area of Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming (the "Tri-State" area). Id. Because the population does not migrate, and therefore is vulnerable to mass starvation during the severe Tri-State winters, concerns grew about the population's future existence. Id. To promote migration of the Tri-State flock to more suitable winter habitats, the Service began to disperse the swans through hazing and translocation programs. Id. at 30. As the Service implemented these programs, some of the displaced Trumpeter swans were brought into contact with Tundra swan hunting areas, where they were mistaken for Tundra swans (Cygnus columbianus) and killed. Id. To reconcile Tundra swan hunting interests with Trumpeter swan restoration efforts, the Service restructured the swan hunting season to include both Tundra and Trumpeter swans while curtailing the hunting areas and shortening the hunting season. Id. at 30-31.

In response, two of the plaintiffs petitioned the Service to list, on both an emergency and a non-emergency basis, the Tri-State Trumpeter swan population as "endangered" or "threatened" under ESA. Id. at 31. The Service responded to the emergency listing petition with a two-page letter concluding that there was no compelling reason to implement an emergency listing of the Tri-State Trumpeter swan population. Id. at 36. The letter stated that "[t]he birds included in your petition are not recognized by the Service as a population but are part of the Rocky Mountain Population (RMP) of Trumpeter swans," and observed that the RMP Trumpeters had increased steadily in number for at least three decades. Id. It went on to indicate that it would issue its finding (known as a "90-day finding") on the non-emergency listing petition as quickly as possible. Id. at 31. More than two years later, the Service formally published its 90-day finding, concluding that the Tri-State Trumpeters are not a "distinct population segment" and setting forth the analysis supporting its conclusion. Id. at 32; 68 Fed.Reg. 4,221-28 (Jan. 28, 2003).

After receiving the Service's letter but before the Service issued its 90-day finding, the plaintiffs filed suit in this court alleging, inter alia, that the defendants had violated ESA. Fund for Animals, 246 F.Supp.2d at 32. In granting summary judgment to the plaintiffs on their ESA claim, the court determined that the Service's denial of the emergency listing petition was arbitrary and capricious because the defendants did not adequately explain their denial. Id. at 37. Specifically, the court held that

[the defendants'] explanation almost, but not quite, provides an "adequate explanation" of the defendants' result .... It does allow the court to reasonably discern most of the agency's logic in concluding, based on data regarding the number of RMP swans and the number of Tri-State swans, that emergency listing was not warranted .... But it misses the crucial first step: it provides not even a cursory explanation as to why the Service does not recognize the Tri-State swans as a population separate from the RMP swans — the heart of the plaintiffs' petition.

Id. at 36. The court then remanded the letter to the Service to provide "an adequate explanation by indicating its reasons for its non-recognition of Tri-State Trumpeter swans as a distinct population." Id. at 37.

Subsequently, the defendants filed the pending motion to alter or amend judgment, alleging that the Service's issuance of the 90-day finding mooted the plaintiffs' ESA claim.² The court now addresses to that motion.

III. ANALYSIS

A. Legal Standards

1. Rule 59(e) Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment

Under Rule 59(e), a party may file a motion to alter or amend the court's judgment within 10 days of entry of the judgment at issue. Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e); see also Mashpee Wampanoag Tribal Council, Inc. v. Norton, 336 F.3d 1094, 1098 (D.C.Cir.2003) (discussing the measurement of the 10-day period). While the court has considerable discretion in ruling on a Rule 59(e) motion, the reconsideration and amendment of a previous order is an unusual measure. Firestone v. Firestone, 76 F.3d 1205, 1208 (D.C.Cir.1996) (per curiam); McDowell v. Calderon, 197 F.3d 1253, 1255 (9th Cir.1999). Rule 59(e) motions "need not be granted unless the district court finds that there is an `intervening change of controlling law, the availability of new evidence, or the need to correct a clear error or prevent manifest injustice.'" Firestone, 76 F.3d at 1208 (citations omitted). Moreover, "[a] Rule 59(e) motion to reconsider is not simply an opportunity to reargue facts and theories upon which a court has already ruled," New York v. United States, 880 F.Supp. 37, 38 (D.D.C.1995), or a vehicle for presenting theories or arguments that could have been raised previously. Kattan v. District of Columbia, 995 F.2d 274, 276 (D.C.Cir.1993); W.C., A.N. Miller Cos., 173 F.R.D. 1, 3 (D.D.C.1997).

2. Mootness

Article III, section 2 of the Constitution limits federal courts to deciding "actual, ongoing controversies."³ 21st Century Telesis Joint Venture v. Fed. Communications Comm'n, 318 F.3d 192, 198 (D.C.Cir.2003) (citing Honig v. Doe, 484 U.S. 305, 317, 108 S.Ct. 592, 98 L.Ed.2d 686 (1988)). Furthermore, the Supreme Court has held that Article III's case-or-controversy requirement prohibits courts from issuing advisory opinions or decisions based on hypothetical facts or abstract issues. Flast v. Cohen, 392 U.S. 83, 96, 88 S.Ct. 1942, 20 L.Ed.2d 947 (1968). "The doctrine of mootness is a logical corollary of the case or controversy requirement [.]" Better Gov't Ass'n v. Dep't of State, 780 F.2d 86, 90 (D.C.Cir.1986). In cases where challenged conduct ceases and "there is no reasonable expectation that the wrong will be repeated, ... it becomes impossible for the court to grant any effectual relief whatever to the prevailing party, and any opinion as to the legality of the challenged action would be advisory." City of Erie v. Pap's A.M., 529 U.S. 277, 287, 120 S.Ct. 1382, 146 L.Ed.2d 265 (2000). Accordingly, a court may not rule on the merits of a case in which the claim for relief is moot.

Courts must evaluate mootness "through all stages" of the litigation in order to ensure that a live controversy remains. 21st Century, 318 F.3d at 198 (citing Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Envtl. Servs. (TOC), Inc., 528 U.S. 167, 191, 120 S.Ct. 693, 145 L.Ed.2d 610 (2000) and Lewis v. Cont'l Bank Corp., 494 U.S. 472, 477, 110 S.Ct. 1249, 108 L.Ed.2d 400 (1990)). As a result, "[e]ven where litigation poses a live controversy when filed, the [mootness] doctrine requires a federal court to refrain from deciding it if `events have so transpired that the decision will neither presently affect the parties' rights nor have a more-than-speculative chance of affecting them in the future.'" Id. (quoting Clarke v. United States, 915 F.2d 699, 701 (D.C.Cir.1990)).

A case is moot when "the issues presented are no longer live or the parties lack a legally cognizable interest in the outcome." City of Erie, 529 U.S. at 287, 120 S.Ct. 1382 (internal quotations omitted). An intervening event may render a claim moot if (1) there is no reasonable expectation that the conduct will recur and (2) interim relief or events have completely and irrevocably eradicated the effects of the alleged violations. Pharmachemie B.V. v. Barr Labs., Inc., 276 F.3d 627, 631 (D.C.Cir.2002); Sellers v. Bureau of Prisons, 959 F.2d 307, 310 (D.C.Cir.1992). A case is not moot, however, so long as any single claim for relief remains viable, as the remaining live issues satisfy the case-or-controversy requirement. Tucson Med. Ctr. v. Sullivan, 947 F.2d 971, 978 (D.C.Cir.1991) (internal quotations and citations omitted). The burden of establishing mootness rests on the party raising the issue, and it is a heavy burden. County...