Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00953/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00953-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 893
Nature of Suit: Environmental Matters
Cause of Action: 05:702 Administrative Procedure Act

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

----oo0oo----

SIERRA NEVADA FOREST PROTECTION No. CIV-S-05-0205 MCE GGH

CAMPAIGN, CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL

DIVERSITY, NATURAL RESOURCES 

DEFENSE COUNCIL, SIERRA CLUB, and

THE WILDERNESS SOCIETY, non-profit ORDER DENYING FEDERAL

organizations, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO 

CONSOLIDATE CASES

Plaintiffs,

v.

MARK REY, in his official capacity as

Under Secretary of Agriculture; DALE

BOSWORTH, in his official capacity

as Chief of the United States Forest

Service; JACK BLACKWELL, in his official

capacity as Regional Forester, 

Region 5, United States Forest Service; 

JAMES M. PEÑA, in his official capacity as

Forest Supervisor, Plumas National Forest,

Federal Defendants.

______________________________________

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, No. CIV-S-05-0211 MCE GGH

ex rel. BILL LOCKYER,

Attorney General,

Plaintiff,

v.

Case 2:05-cv-00953-MCE-AC Document 27 Filed 07/27/05 Page 1 of 4
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

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF

AGRICULTURE; MIKE JOHANNS, in his

official capacity as Secretary of the 

Department of Agriculture; 

MARK REY, in his official capacity as

Under Secretary of Agriculture;

DALE BOSWORTH, in his official capacity

as Chief of the United States Forest

Service; and JACK A. BLACKWELL in his

official capacity as Regional Forester,

Region 5, United States Forest Service, 

Federal Defendants.

______________________________________

CALIFORNIA FORESTRY ASSOCIATION

and AMERICAN FOREST & PAPER No. CIV-S-0905-MCE DAD

ASSOCIATION,

Plaintiffs,

v.

DALE BOSWORTH, Chief, United States

Forest Service; MIKE JOHANNS, Secretary of

Agriculture; and JACK A. BLACKWELL,

Regional Forester, Pacific Southwest Region,

United States Forest Service,

Federal Defendants.

______________________________________

PACIFIC RIVERS COUNCIL,

No. CIV-S-00953 MCE DAD

Plaintiff,

v.

UNITED STATES FOREST SERVICE;

MARK REY, in his official capacity as Under

Secretary of Agriculture; DALE BOSWORTH, 

in his official capacity as Chief of the

United States Forest Service; 

JACK BLACKWELL, in his official capacity

 as Regional Forester, 

Region 5, United States Forest Service,

Federal Defendants.

______________________________________

----oo0oo----

The matter is before the Court upon a motion by the

United States to consolidate, pursuant to Rule 42(a) of the 

Case 2:05-cv-00953-MCE-AC Document 27 Filed 07/27/05 Page 2 of 4
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

3

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the four above-captioned cases,

which have all been previously related in accordance with the

provisions of Local Rule 83-123. According to the United States,

consolidation would promote judicial economy by providing a

comprehensive procedural mechanism for coordinating all four of

these challenges to the 2004 Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment. 

 In requesting consolidation only for purposes of such

coordination, however, the United States specifically states that

the four cases should not be merged. This concern is reiterated

by Plaintiffs California Forestry Association, Sierra Nevada

Forest Protection Campaign, People of the State of California and

Pacific Rivers Council, who agree with consolidation only to the

extent that the related cases are not merged and consolidation is

limited to requiring coordinated briefing and hearing schedules

to promote the efficient resolution of each case.

Although the parties appear to be in agreement that the

cases not be merged, the procedure utilized by this Court for

consolidation involves that very procedural vehicle, and would

entail designation of a single master case into which the other

cases would be incorporated. Given the complexity of these cases

and the factual distinctions which apply to some of the actions,

such merger in the Court’s view would be both unwieldy,

impracticable, and contrary to the parties’ desires in any event. 

Because the Court finds that such consolidation would

consequently not promote judicial economy, the United States’

//

//

//

Case 2:05-cv-00953-MCE-AC Document 27 Filed 07/27/05 Page 3 of 4
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

Because oral argument would not be of material assistance, 1

this matter was deemed suitable for decision without oral

argument. E.D. Local Rule 78-230(h).

4

Motion to Consolidate is DENIED.1

The Court does, find, however, that coordination within the

confines of the related status of these cases is indicated. 

Consequently coordination to that extent will occur. The parties

in each case shall consult and, within 21 days of this order,

submit joint status reports that include proposed schedules for

briefing the merits of the cases. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: July 27, 2005

_____________________________

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:05-cv-00953-MCE-AC Document 27 Filed 07/27/05 Page 4 of 4