People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, Inc. v. U.S. Dep't of Agric.
| Decision Date | 02 May 2016 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action No. 15–cv–00920–CMA |
| Citation | 183 F.Supp.3d 1137 |
| Parties | People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, Inc., Plaintiff, v. United States Department of Agriculture, and Tom Vilsack, in his official capacity as Secretary of the United States Department of Agriculture, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Colorado |
Delcianna Joy Winders, Jenni Rebecca James, Foundation to Support Animal Protection, Washington, DC, for Plaintiff.
Juan G. Villasenor, U.S. Attorney's Office, Denver, CO, for Defendants.
This matter comes before the Court for review of agency action pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act ("APA"), 5 U.S.C. § 701 et seq. The Court has reviewed the Administrative Record (Doc. # 36, as supplemented by Doc. # # 37, 43, 46), the Plaintiffs' opening brief (Doc. # 47), the Defendant's response brief (Doc. # 51), and the Plaintiffs' reply brief (Doc. # 52).
On April 30, 2015, Plaintiff People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, Inc. ("PETA") filed its Complaint (Doc. # 1) seeking judicial review of the United States Department of Agriculture's ("USDA") September 4, 20141 decision to issue a wild animal exhibitor's license to the Louisiana Purchase Gardens and Zoo ("LPZ"), owned by and located in the City of Monroe, Louisiana. (AR at 76.)
Congress directs the Secretary of Agriculture ("Secretary") to issue exhibitor licenses under the Animal Welfare Act ("AWA"), 7 U.S.C. §§ 2133. The Secretary has promulgated standards of compliance to govern, among other things, when the issuance of a zoo license is proper in 9 C.F.R. Ch. I, Subch. A—Animal Welfare ("Title 9"). In accordance with Title 9, the USDA issues exhibitor licenses through its subsidiary agency the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service ("APHIS").
Before the licensing at issue in this case, LPZ held AWA license 72–C–0148, which expired May 6, 2014. (Doc. # 51 at 3; AR at 233, 235.) On June 27, 2014, the City of Monroe, d/b/a LPZ, applied for a new license. (AR at 76.) Over the following two months, APHIS conducted two pre-license inspections of LPZ. (AR at 86–89.) LPZ failed the first pre-license inspection on July 8, 2014. (AR at 86–88). In that inspection report, APHIS noted six areas of noncompliance with the Title 9 licensure standards, specifically §§ 2.131(c)(1), 3.75(a), 3.125(a), 3.125(c), 3.127(d), and 3.131. (Id. ) The inspector advised LPZ of the "availability of two additional inspections if needed to meet 100% compliance of minimal standards or 90 days whichever occurs first." (AR at 88.) If LPZ did not meet 100% compliance within two inspections or 90 days, the zoo would have to wait six months to re-apply for a new license. (Id. ) APHIS conducted and LPZ passed a second inspection on August 27, 2014. (AR at 89.) APHIS found "no noncompliance" in that inspection. (Id. ) Accordingly, on Sept. 4, 2014, APHIS issued LPZ a Class C exhibitor license numbered 74–C–0223. (AR at 75.) APHIS renewed that license on Sept. 3, 2015. (AR at 77–78.)
PETA contends that the USDA's decision to issue LPZ a new exhibitor license in September 2014 violated 7 U.S.C. § 2133 of the AWA, in that the USDA's decision making process was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. Section 2133 provides:
The Secretary [of Agriculture of the United States] shall issue licenses to dealers and exhibitors upon application therefor in such form and manner as he may prescribe and upon payment of such fee established pursuant to 2153 of this title: Provided, That no such license shall be issued until the dealer or exhibitor shall have demonstrated that his facilities comply with the standards promulgated by the Secretary pursuant to section 2143 of this title....
7 U.S.C. § 2133 (2012). PETA alleges that, at the time the USDA issued LPZ its new exhibitor license, the zoo was not in compliance with three standards promulgated by the Secretary. Specifically, the zoo (1) housed nonhuman primates in isolation without justification in violation of 9 C.F.R. § 3.81, (2) housed animals in facilities with inadequate fences in violation of 9 C.F.R. § 3.127(d), and (3) actively exhibited animals without a valid license in violation of 9 C.F.R. § 2.1. (Doc. # 47 at 2–3.) To support these contentions, PETA points to evidence in the administrative record ("AR")—primarily letters, photographs, and video footage PETA submitted to the USDA between May 2014 and May 2015, with some items dating back to 2010.
The USDA responds with three arguments. First, the USDA contends PETA's claim is moot because the USDA renewed LPZ's license while this litigation was pending, superseding its licensing decision with a new final agency action subject to "materially different regulatory standards." (Doc. # 51 at 10.) Second, the USDA contends its decision to issue LPZ a license based solely on the agency's own pre-license inspection reports was a permissible interpretation of the AWA and, as such, is entitled to Chevron deference. Finally, the USDA argues that, even if the case is not moot, its decision to issue LPZ an exhibitor license was not arbitrary and capricious because it is supported by substantial evidence—namely the second pre-license inspection report finding "no noncompliance." Further, the USDA argues its decision is entitled to a presumption of regularity and PETA has failed to present clear evidence LPZ was not in compliance in order to overcome that presumption.
PETA seeks declaratory and injunctive relief under Section 702 of the APA and asks this Court to set aside the USDA's licensing decision as "arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law" within the meaning of the APA. Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A) (2012).
The APA itself "does not afford an implied grant of subject-matter jurisdiction" to review federal administrative action, but this Court can exercise federal question jurisdiction to review administrative action under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Califano v. Sanders, 430 U.S. 99, 105, 97 S.Ct. 980, 51 L.Ed.2d 192 (1977) (). Venue is also proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e) because the events giving rise to the claims took place in this district.
A. Subject Matter Jurisdiction
Before discussing the merits of the USDA's decision to issue a license to LPZ, this Court must address two threshold issues regarding this Court's subject matter jurisdiction to review federal administrative actions. First, not all decisions of administrative agencies are judicially reviewable. 5 U.S.C § 701(a)(1)–(2). Second, "[w]e have no subject-matter jurisdiction if a case is moot." Rio Grande Silvery Minnow v. Bureau of Reclamation, 601 F.3d 1096, 1109 (10th Cir.2010). The claims in the instant case are neither statutorily precluded from judicial review nor moot.
Because the Animal Welfare Act does not provide for a private right of action, Plaintiff files this suit under the general cause of action provided for in section 702 of the APA. (Doc. # 1.) That section provides a "person suffering legal wrong because of agency action, or adversely affected or aggrieved by agency action within the meaning of a relevant statute, is entitled to judicial review thereof."2
5 U.S.C § 702. This provision does not apply, however, where "statutes preclude judicial review" or the challenged agency action is "committed to agency discretion by law."3 5 U.S.C. § 701(a). Outside these two narrow exceptions, "[a]ll agency actions are presumed reviewable under the APA." Wyoming v. U.S. Dep't of Agric., 661 F.3d 1209, 1242 (10th Cir.2011).
The agency action Plaintiff challenges in this case is the USDA's issuance of an animal exhibition license to LPZ pursuant to the Animal Welfare Act ("AWA"), 7 U.S.C. §§ 2131 –2159. The AWA does not, in any of its provisions, preclude judicial review such that section 701(a)(1) should apply. Nor does the AWA commit complete discretion to the USDA such that section 701(a)(2) should apply. The AWA is not "drawn so that a court would have no meaningful standard against which to judge the agency's exercise of discretion." Wyoming, 661 F.3d at 1242 (citation omitted). The AWA provides guidelines for the issuance of exhibitor licenses in 7 U.S.C. § 2133 :
The Secretary shall issue licenses to dealers and exhibitors upon application therefor in such form and manner as he may prescribe and upon payment of such fee established pursuant to 2153 of this title: Provided, That no such license shall be issued until the dealer or exhibitor shall have demonstrated that his facilities comply with the standards promulgated by the Secretary pursuant to section 2143 of this title....
Though the AWA provides the Secretary with significant discretion, the Secretary may only grant licenses to dealers or exhibitors that comply with promulgated standards. Because these guidelines give this Court "law to apply" to the USDA's licensing decision, section 701(a)(2) also does not preclude judicial review. City of Colorado Springs v. Solis, 589 F.3d 1121, 1130 (10th Cir.2009) (quoting Citizens to Pres. Overton Park, Inc. v. Volpe , 401 U.S. 402, 410, 91 S.Ct. 814, 28 L.Ed.2d 136 (1971) ). Thus, the USDA's licensing decision is not statutorily precluded from judicial review.
The USDA argues Plaintiff's challenge to the USDA's issuance of an initial exhibitor license to LPZ is moot because that "final agency action" was superseded by a subsequent final agency action—the USDA's decision to renew LPZ's license—that was subject to materially different regulatory standards than...
To continue reading
Request your trial