Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-02588/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-02588-8/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 893
Nature of Suit: Environmental Matters
Cause of Action: 42:4321 Review of Agency Action-Environment

---

U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF

CALIFORNIA ex rel. BILL LOCKYER, 

Plaintiff,

 v.

UNITED STATES FOREST SERVICE, et

al.,

Defendants.

 /

No. C 04-02588 CRB

ORDER OF DISMISSAL AS MOOT

On July 11, 2005, the Court issued an Order finding that the 2004-2005 Sequoia

National Forest Fire Plan (“2004 Fire Plan”) was a decisional document subject to the

provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”), and because no NEPA

review had been conducted, the Court concluded that the 2004 Fire Plan violated NEPA. 

The Court remanded the matter to defendants to achieve compliance by April 10, 2006. On

that date, defendants submitted to the Court a 2006-2007 Fire Plan that incorporated its

efforts to bring the 2004 Fire Plan into compliance with NEPA. Subsequently, defendants

decided to withdraw the Fire Plan in its entirety, and they then sought (and received) from the

Chief of the Forest Service a waiver of the Forest Service Manual provision requiring a fire

management plan for the Sequoia National Forest. On June 6, 2006, defendants notified the

Court of that decision and requested that the Court dismiss this action as moot. The Court

asked for supplemental briefing from the parties on the issue of mootness. After carefully

Case 3:04-cv-02588-CRB Document 70 Filed 07/20/06 Page 1 of 4
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

Plaintiff identifies several reasons in support of its assertion that defendants have

withdrawn the Fire Plan in response to litigation. Pl.’s Opp. at 4. Of particular importance, the

Court notes that defendants withdrew the plan before receiving a waiver of the Forest Service

Manual’s requirement to issue a fire management plan in the Sequoia National Forest; and

defendants have not withdrawn other fire plans that are not subject to adverse rulings from

courts.

2

considering these memoranda, the Court finds that this matter is now moot and is hereby

DISMISSED.

DISCUSSION

Under Article III of the United States Constitution a foundational predicate to the

exercise of judicial power is that a “case or controversy” must exist for the duration of an

action. See, e.g., United States Parole Comm’n v. Geraghty, 445 U.S. 388, 397 (1980). A

case is moot where “the issues presented are no longer ‘live’ or the parties lack a legally

cognizable interest in the outcome.” Id. at 396 (quoting Powell v. McCormack, 395 U.S. 486,

496 (1969)). The Ninth Circuit has stated that the “basic question in determining mootness is

whether there is a present controversy as to which effective relief can be granted.” 

Northwest Environmental Defense Center v. Gordon, 849 F.2d 1241, 1244 (9th Cir. 1988). 

A court sitting in equity deciding a mootness issue must not consider whether the “precise

relief sought at the time the application for an injunction was filed is still available” but

“whether there can be any effective relief.” Id. at 1244-45 (emphasis in original). This

steadfast requirement is borne out of a court’s duty to avoid rendering advisory opinions. 

See Preiser v. Newkirk, 422 U.S. 395, 401 (1975) (stating that the judgments of federal

courts “must resolve a real and substantial controversy admitting of specific relief through a

decree of a conclusive character, as distinguished from an opinion advising what the law

would be upon a hypothetical state of facts”) (internal quotations and citations omitted). 

Plaintiff objects to defendants request for the Court to dismiss this matter as moot and

instead urges the Court to “permanently enjoin the Forest Service from issuing any NEPAnoncompliant fire plan for Sequoia National Forest in the future.” Pl.’s Opp. at 2. Plaintiff

contends that defendants withdrew the Fire Plan as a direct result of this litigation,1 and that

two exceptions to the mootness doctrine apply here: 1) voluntary cessation and 2) “capable of

Case 3:04-cv-02588-CRB Document 70 Filed 07/20/06 Page 2 of 4
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

Plaintiff’s proposal is as follows:

It is ORDERED that defendant United States Forest Service is permanently enjoined

from issuing a Fire Management Plan or other decisional document for [the] Sequoia

National Forest that encompasses wildland fire management policies unless and until the

Forest Service fully complies with NEPA, as set forth in the Court’s July 11, 2005

liability order.

Pl.’s Opp. at 8.

G:\CRBALL\2004\2588\order of dismissal.wpd 3

repetition, yet evading review.” While the Court does not dispute that defendants’ actions

resulted purely as a response to this litigation, defendants’ decision to withdraw the Fire Plan

nevertheless renders the Court incapable of providing “effective relief.” Accordingly, the

Court need not address whether an exception to the mootness doctrine applies, because even

if it did, the Court would only be capable of issuing an impermissible advisory opinion. 

Plaintiff’s own suggested wording for a proposed permanent injunction highlights the

speculative nature of any order the Court might render, which would be based entirely on a

hypothetical set of facts.2 First and foremost, the effective mandate of such an order is

essentially to direct the Forest Service to follow the law, which it remains obligated to do

regardless of the outcome of this case. Second, plaintiff’s claim is no longer ripe for review.

The withdrawal of the 2006 Fire Plan removes any semblance of a relevant and applicable

factual record that can be analyzed to determine whether and to what extent relief is

appropriate. Any injunction at this point would be untethered to an existing controversy or

factual record. Finally, such an overbroad injunction would amount to an advisory opinion

since there is no current fire plan to evaluate and there is no indication that there will be one

in the future that even resembles the one at issue in this case. The hypothetical situation

plaintiff anticipates is far too vague and remote to warrant an injunction. 

Accordingly, the Court finds that this matter is moot because effective relief is no

longer achievable. Thus, the case is hereby DISMISSED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 20, 2006 

 

CHARLES R. BREYER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:04-cv-02588-CRB Document 70 Filed 07/20/06 Page 3 of 4
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

G:\CRBALL\2004\2588\order of dismissal.wpd 4

Case 3:04-cv-02588-CRB Document 70 Filed 07/20/06 Page 4 of 4