In Def. of Animals v. United States Dep't of The Interior, No. 10–16715.
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit) |
| Citation | 11 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 10356,2011 Daily Journal D.A.R. 12385,648 F.3d 1012,73 ERC 1327 |
| Decision Date | 15 August 2011 |
| Parties | IN DEFENSE OF ANIMALS; Dreamcatcher Wild Horse and Burro Sanctuary; Barbara Clarke; Chad Hanson; Linda Hay, Plaintiffs–Appellants,v.UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF the INTERIOR; Bureau of Land Management; Ken Salazar, Secretary of the U.S. Department of the Interior; Robert Abbey, Director of the Bureau of Land Management; Ken Collum, Acting Field Manager of Eagle Lake Field Office, Defendants–Appellees. |
| Docket Number | No. 10–16715. |
648 F.3d 1012
73 ERC 1327
11 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 10,356
2011 Daily Journal D.A.R. 12,385
IN DEFENSE OF ANIMALS; Dreamcatcher Wild Horse and Burro Sanctuary; Barbara Clarke; Chad Hanson; Linda Hay, Plaintiffs–Appellants,
v.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF the INTERIOR; Bureau of Land Management; Ken Salazar, Secretary of the U.S. Department of the Interior; Robert Abbey, Director of the Bureau of Land Management; Ken Collum, Acting Field Manager of Eagle Lake Field Office, Defendants–Appellees.
No. 10–16715.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Argued and Submitted Jan. 11, 2011.Filed Aug. 15, 2011.
Rachel Fazio, Cedar Ridge, CA, for plaintiffs-appellants In Defense of Animals, et al.David C. Shilton, Washington, D.C., for defendants-appellees Kenneth L. Salazar, Secretary of the Interior, et al.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, Morrison C. England, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. 2:10–cv–01852–MCE–DAD.
[648 F.3d 1013]
Before: MARY M. SCHROEDER, JOHNNIE B. RAWLINSON, and CARLOS T. BEA, Circuit Judges.PER CURIAM Opinion; Dissent by Judge RAWLINSON.This interlocutory appeal arises from an action instituted in the district court to stop the government from rounding up, destroying, and auctioning off wild horses and burros in the Twin Peaks Herd Management Area on the California–Nevada border. Plaintiffs allege that the government's actions will violate the Wild Free–Roaming Horses and Burros Act (“Wild Horses Act”), 16 U.S.C. § 1331 et seq., and the National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”), 42 U.S.C. § 4321 et seq.
Plaintiffs are two non-profit organizations dedicated to protecting wild horses and burros, In Defense of Animals and Dreamcatcher Wild Horse and Burro Sanctuary, as well as members of these organizations, Barbara Clarke, Chad Hanson, and Linda Hay (collectively “Plaintiffs”). Plaintiffs filed a Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order and/or Preliminary Injunction on August 5, 2010 to stop the roundup of horses that was scheduled to begin August 9, 2010 and to last 45–60 days. The district court denied the injunction, a motions panel at this court denied an emergency motion for injunctive relief pending appeal on August 10, 2010, and the roundup has now taken place. The horses are currently offsite and the remainder of the plan is apparently going forward.
Plaintiffs' motion raises serious legal questions concerning whether the large-scale removal of horses conflicts with the Wild Horses Act and whether an Environmental Impact Statement is required before any action can be implemented. The motion for preliminary injunction sought to enjoin only the effects of implementing the initial phase. The motion...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Chilkat Indian Vill. of Klukwan v. Bureau of Land Mgmt., Case No. 3:17-cv-00253-TMB
...impacts "has present consequences" that agency could remedy or mitigate); but see In Defense of Animals v. U.S. Dep't of Interior , 648 F.3d 1012, 1013 (9th Cir. 2011) (holding interlocutory appeal of a motion for preliminary injunction was mooted where the action had taken place, but notin......
-
In Def. Animals v. U.S. Dep't of the Interior, No. 2:10–cv–01852–MCE–DAD.
...denied by the Ninth Circuit, and the gather proceeded. Plaintiffs' appeal was ultimately denied by the appeals panel on August 15, 2011, 648 F.3d 1012 (9th Cir.2011), on grounds that because the gather had already occurred, the injunctive relief sought had become moot. Defendants thereafter......
-
Leigh v. Salazar, No. 11–16088.
...as applied to future gathers in Silver King. The government contends that In Defense of Animals v. United States Department of Interior, 648 F.3d 1012 (9th Cir.2011), supports the district court's mootness decision. In that case, an animal rights group filed a motion for a preliminary injun......
-
in Def. Animals v. U.S. Dep't of the Interior, No. 12–17804.
...preliminary injunction appeal because the injunctive relief sought had become moot. In Defense of Animals v. U.S. Dep't of Interior, 648 F.3d 1012 (9th Cir.2011). The parties then filed cross motions for summary judgment in the district court. The district court granted Defendants summary j......
-
Chilkat Indian Vill. of Klukwan v. Bureau of Land Mgmt., Case No. 3:17-cv-00253-TMB
...impacts "has present consequences" that agency could remedy or mitigate); but see In Defense of Animals v. U.S. Dep't of Interior , 648 F.3d 1012, 1013 (9th Cir. 2011) (holding interlocutory appeal of a motion for preliminary injunction was mooted where the action had taken place, but notin......
-
In Def. Animals v. U.S. Dep't of the Interior, No. 2:10–cv–01852–MCE–DAD.
...denied by the Ninth Circuit, and the gather proceeded. Plaintiffs' appeal was ultimately denied by the appeals panel on August 15, 2011, 648 F.3d 1012 (9th Cir.2011), on grounds that because the gather had already occurred, the injunctive relief sought had become moot. Defendants thereafter......
-
Leigh v. Salazar, No. 11–16088.
...as applied to future gathers in Silver King. The government contends that In Defense of Animals v. United States Department of Interior, 648 F.3d 1012 (9th Cir.2011), supports the district court's mootness decision. In that case, an animal rights group filed a motion for a preliminary injun......
-
in Def. Animals v. U.S. Dep't of the Interior, No. 12–17804.
...preliminary injunction appeal because the injunctive relief sought had become moot. In Defense of Animals v. U.S. Dep't of Interior, 648 F.3d 1012 (9th Cir.2011). The parties then filed cross motions for summary judgment in the district court. The district court granted Defendants summary j......