Center for Biological Diversity v. Bureau of Land Management

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA

CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, Case No. 3:23-cv-00061-SLG et al.,

Defendants. and

CONOCOPHILLIPS ALASKA, INC., et al.,

Intervenor-Defendants.

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO EXPEDITE AND DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR INJUNCTION PENDING APPEAL

Before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Rule 62(d) Motion for Injunction Pending Appeal (Docket 84) and Plaintiffs’ Motion for Expedited Consideration of their Motion for Injunction Pending Appeal (Docket 85). Upon due consideration, the motion to expedite at Docket 85 is GRANTED. “The standard for evaluating an injunction pending appeal is similar to that employed by district courts in deciding whether to grant a preliminary injunction.”1 The Court has reviewed Plaintiffs’ most recent filing and disagrees with its analysis.

Accordingly, the Court DENIES the motion for an injunction pending appeal at Docket 84 for the reasons provided in the Court’s Order Regarding Motions for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction (Docket 82).

IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED this 5th day of April, 2023 at Anchorage, Alaska.

/s/ Sharon L. Gleason UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

1 Feldman v. Arizona Sec’y of State’s Office, 843 F.3d 366, 367 (9th Cir. 2016) (first citing Lopez v. Heckler, 713 F.2d 1432, 1435 (9th Cir. 1983); and then citing Southeast Alaska Conservation Council v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng’rs, 472 F.3d 1097, 1100 (9th Cir. 2006)).

Case No. 3:23-cv-00061-SLG, Ctr. for Biological Diversity, et al. v. BLM, et al.