Ksanka Kupaqa Xa'lcin v. United States Fish and Wildlife Service

D. Montana

Ksanka Kupaqa Xa'lcin v. United States Fish and Wildlife Service

DecidedJune 7, 2019

Docket9:19-cv-00020

StatusUnknown

This text of Ksanka Kupaqa Xa'lcin v. United States Fish and Wildlife Service (Ksanka Kupaqa Xa'lcin v. United States Fish and Wildlife Service) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Montana primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Ksanka Kupaqa Xa'lcin v. United States Fish and Wildlife Service, (D. Mont. 2019).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT Fy L E fh a re Cn, ts Maton Coun KSANKA KUPAQA XA‘EQIN, et al., CV 19-20-M—-DWM Plaintiffs, vs. ORDER UNITED STATES FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE, et al., Defendants, and RC RESOURCES, INC., Defendant-Intervenor.

This suit alleges the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and U.S. Forest Service violated the Endangered Species Act (“ESA”) by approving the Rock Creek Mine in the Cabinet Mountains. Defendants request a stay so they can review the decisional documents challenged in this case. (Doc. 26.) Specifically, Defendants

are assessing the impact of events that have occurred since those documents were completed. They argue a stay is necessary because the review may result in the amendment, supplementation, or withdrawal of the documents, which could affect this litigation.

Defendants are free to withdraw or amend their decisional documents at any time. But they cannot delay ongoing litigation to shore up the administrative record or search for post-hoc rationalizations based on new information. See Ctr. Jor Biological Diversity v. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Serv., 450 F.3d 930, 943 (9th Cir. 2006). Unless and until the documents are withdrawn or amended, Defendants must defend against the existing allegations. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Stay (Doc. 26) is DENIED. A scheduling order based on the parties’ proposed case management plan is forthcoming. DATED this TP sey of June, 2019. co" / tae Wok Donald W. Molloy, District = United States District Court

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT Fy L E fh a re Cn, ts Maton Coun KSANKA KUPAQA XA‘EQIN, et al., CV 19-20-M—-DWM Plaintiffs, vs. ORDER UNITED STATES FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE, et al., Defendants, and RC RESOURCES, INC., Defendant-Intervenor.

This suit alleges the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and U.S. Forest Service violated the Endangered Species Act (“ESA”) by approving the Rock Creek Mine in the Cabinet Mountains. Defendants request a stay so they can review the decisional documents challenged in this case. (Doc. 26.) Specifically, Defendants

are assessing the impact of events that have occurred since those documents were completed. They argue a stay is necessary because the review may result in the amendment, supplementation, or withdrawal of the documents, which could affect this litigation.

Defendants are free to withdraw or amend their decisional documents at any time. But they cannot delay ongoing litigation to shore up the administrative record or search for post-hoc rationalizations based on new information. See Ctr. Jor Biological Diversity v. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Serv., 450 F.3d 930, 943 (9th Cir. 2006). Unless and until the documents are withdrawn or amended, Defendants must defend against the existing allegations. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Stay (Doc. 26) is DENIED. A scheduling order based on the parties’ proposed case management plan is forthcoming. DATED this TP sey of June, 2019. co" / tae Wok Donald W. Molloy, District = United States District Court

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Ksanka Kupaqa Xa'lcin v. United States Fish and Wildlife Service, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ksanka-kupaqa-xalcin-v-united-states-fish-and-wildlife-service-mtd-2019.