Case ID: f-appx_328/html/0395-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

ECOLOGY CENTER, INC.; Alliance for the Wild Rockies, Inc.; Wildwest Institute, Plaintiffs—Appellants, v. Tom TIDWELL, Regional Forester of Region One of the U.S. Forest Service; Deborah Austin, in her official capacity as Forest Supervisor for the Lolo National Forest; United States Forest Service, an agency of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Defendants—Appellees. Alliance for the Wild Rockies, Inc.; Wildwest Institute, Plaintiffs—Appellants, v. Tom Tidwell, Regional Forester of Region One of the U.S. Forest Service; Deborah Austin, in her official capacity as Forest Supervisor for the Lolo National Forest; United States Forest Service, an agency of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Defendants—Appellees.
    Nos. 06-36019, 07-35106.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Argued and Submitted Nov. 19, 2008.
    Submission Vacated Feb. 25, 2009.
    Resubmitted June 26, 2009.
    Filed June 26, 2009.
    Matt Kenna, Durango, CO, Thomas J. Woodbury, Esquire, Forest Defense, P.C., Missoula, MT, for Plaintiffs-Appellants.
    Rachel Dougan, Esquire, Elizabeth Ann Peterson, Charles Scott, Trial, Benjamin Longstreth, Esquire, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Mark Steger Smith, Esquire, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Billings, MT, for Defendants-Appellees.
    Before: KOZINSKI, Chief Judge, B. FLETCHER and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
   MEMORANDUM

Plaintiffs lack standing because they have not identified an application of the Forest Service regulations that threatens their interests with “imminent harm.” Summers v. Earth Island Inst., — U.S. —, 129 S.Ct. 1142, 1150, 173 L.Ed.2d 1 (2009). Although projects existed at the pleading stage that potentially afforded standing, settlement and other dispositions of claims have removed any ongoing threat to plaintiffs’ interest. The Juel declaration appears for the first time in the reply brief, and we therefore don’t consider it. Fed. R.App. P. 10(a); Summers, 129 S.Ct. at 1150 n. *.

DISMISSED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.