Friends of Animals v. Haaland

District Court, D. Nevada·Decided November 21, 2022·No. 3:22-cv-00365·Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA FRIENDS OF ANIMALS, a non-profit Case No. 3:22-cv-00365-ART-CLB corporation, Plaintiff, v. ORDER ADOPTING CASE SCHEDULE OUTLINED IN DEB HAALAND, in her official capacity as Secretary of the Interior; and JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT REPORT THE UNITED STATES BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, an agency of the United States Defendants. 1 Plaintiff Friends of Animals (“Plaintiff”) and Defendants Deb Haaland, in her official 2 capacity as Secretary of the Interior, and the United States Bureau of Land Management 3 (BLM) (“Defendants”), (collectively, the “Parties”), file this Joint Case Management Report 4 for the above-captioned case pursuant to the Court’s Order dated October 18, 2022 (ECF 5 No. 18). The parties have conferred and agree that this is a case for review on the 6 administrative record and is therefore exempt from the requirements of Federal Rule of 7 Civil Procedure 26. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1)(B)(i); D. Nev. Civ. R. 16-1(c)(1). 8 1. Nature of the case 9 BLM manages 245 million acres of public lands in the United States including about 10 26.9 million acres managed as wild horse and burro habitat. BLM periodically rounds up 11 and removes wild horses and burros (“WHB”) from public lands. After a gather BLM 12 transfers the wild horses and burros to off-range corrals (ORCs), which were previously 13 known as short-term holding facilities. Wild horses and burros are held at ORCs until they 14 are adopted, sold, die, or there is availability at off-range pastures (ORPs), which were 15 previously known as long-term holding facilities. 16 On October 30, 2020, BLM issued a solicitation seeking contractors to provide ORC 17 space on private land in Nevada and two other states. On August 3, 2021, BLM sent an 18 official apparent awardee letter to JS Livestock Inc. stating that BLM anticipated awarding a 19 contract to JS Livestock for the processing, feeding, and care of up to 4,000 excess wild 20 horses and burros on 100 acres of private land owned by JS Livestock near Winnemucca, 21 Nevada (the “Winnemucca ORC”). On September 2, 2021, BLM released a Preliminary 22 Environmental Assessment (EA) pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) 23 and solicited public comments on the Proposed Action for the BLM to fund a contract with 24 JS Livestock for the Winnemucca ORC. 25 26 27 1 On November 3, 2021, BLM released a Final EA, a Finding of No Significant Impact 2 (FONSI), and a Decision Record concluding that the construction, maintenance and 3 operation of the Winnemucca ORC would not significantly impact the human environment 4 and that an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) under NEPA was not necessary. 5 On August 18, 2022, Friends of Animals filed a complaint against Defendants 6 claiming that BLM’s decision to fund and continuously operate the Winnemucca ORC 7 violated NEPA 42 U.S.C. §§ 4321, et seq., the Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act 8 (WHBA) 16 U.S.C. §§ 1331 et seq., and was arbitrary and capricious, an abuse of discretion, 9 and not in accordance with law or required procedure, in violation APA the 10 Administrative Procedure Act (APA) 5 U.S.C. §§ 701-06. Friends of Animals claims that the 11 decision to award the Winnemucca ORC contract violates NEPA, the APA, and the WHBA. 12 Defendants dispute Plaintiff’s claims and maintain that the decision to award the 13 Winnemucca ORC contract, and its accompanying environmental review, are lawful, 14 reasonable, and supported by the record. Defendants deny that Plaintiff is entitled to any 15 relief whatsoever. 16 2. Jurisdiction 17 This Court has federal question subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 18 because this action presents a case and controversy arising under the WHBA, 16 U.S.C. §§ 19 1331 et seq. and NEPA, 42 U.S.C. §§ 4321, et seq. which are federal statutes. This Court also 20 has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1346, as the United States is a defendant. This Court 21 has authority to grant Plaintiff’s requested relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201-2202 22 (declaratory and injunctive relief) and 5 U.S.C. §§ 701-706 (Administrative Procedure Act). 23 Venue properly lies in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e) and 16 U.S.C. § 24 1540(g)(3)(A). The events giving rise to the cause of action occurred in this judicial district 25 and Defendant, BLM, maintains an office in this judicial district. 26 27 1 3. Additional parties and amended pleading 2 The Parties do not expect to add additional parties to the case or otherwise amend 3 pleadings. 4 4. Pending motions 5 There are no pending motions in this case. 6 5. Related cases 7 There are no related cases to this case. 8 6. Discovery 9 The Parties agree that this case arises under the APA, which will involve resolution 10 of Plaintiff’s claims through judicial review of the administrative record and applicable 11 federal statutes and regulations. See 5 U.S.C. § 706; Camp v. Pitts, 411 U.S. 138, 142 (1973); 12 Ctr. For Biological Diversity v. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Serv., 450 F.3d 930, 934 n.4 (9th Cir. 2006). 13 Extra-record evidence, including the taking of discovery, is allowed only through limited 14 exceptions and the parties are not obligated to follow the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15 26 discovery process. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1)(B)(i); D. Nev. Civ. R. 16-1(c)(1). The 16 Parties have conferred, and neither the Plaintiff nor Federal Defendants intend at this time 17 to seek discovery; in the event that any Party decides to alter from this plan and seek 18 discovery, the Parties acknowledge that leave of the Court would be required. 19 7. ESI 20 This section is inapplicable to this case because this is a case for review on the 21 administrative record. 22 8. Scheduling 23 The Court ordered the parties to file a Joint Case Management Report by Friday, 24 November 18, 2022. See ECF No. 18. As discussed above, this case arises under the APA and 25 neither party intends to seek discovery at this time. The parties have conferred and agree 26 that the case could be resolved with motions for summary judgment.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Friends of Animals v. Haaland, (D. Nev. 2022).

Friends of Animals v. Haaland (Friends of Animals v. Haaland) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Camp v. Pitts
411 U.S. 138 (Supreme Court, 1973)