Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_04-cv-02352/USCOURTS-azd-3_04-cv-02352-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 42:4321 Review of Agency Action-Environment

---

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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Marc Delany, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CIV 04-2352 PCT VAM

)

U.S. Forest Service, et al., ) O R D E R

)

 Defendants. )

Plaintiff filed this action under the Administrative

Procedures Act seeking review of a Forest Service decision closing

a Forest Service road. (Doc. 1). The subject dirt road is

located within the Prescott National Forest and in the vicinity of

plaintiff's private property. Plaintiff has a long history of

administrative proceedings and litigation with the U.S. Forest

Service over closure of the road to routine use. Plaintiff filed

this Administrative Procedures Act lawsuit on October 29, 2004. 

(Doc. 1). Defendants filed their Answer on April 15, 2005. (Doc.

3). The parties consented to proceed before a Magistrate Judge

and the case was reassigned. (Doc. 12). A status hearing was

held and deadlines were set for the filing of the administrative

record. (Docs. 15, 16). During the status hearing, the parties

discussed the possibility of a mediation involving a Magistrate

Judge but the Government made it clear there were many homeowners

Case 3:04-cv-02352-MHB Document 27 Filed 05/11/06 Page 1 of 8
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

The Court does not know who the necessary parties might be

and plaintiff and the defendant would be in a much better position

to advise the Court on this matter.

2

in addition to plaintiff who would be affected by a settlement. 

Therefore, any settlement would require participation of all

potentially affected parties.

On December 30, 2005, defendants filed the administrative

record. (Doc. 17). On January 31, 2006, plaintiff filed a Motion

to Supplement the administrative record. (Doc. 22). Defendants

have opposed the Motion to Supplement. (Doc. 26). 

Also pending before the Court are plaintiff's Motion for

Preliminary Injunction (Doc. 21) and Motion for Court Supervised

Mediation (Doc. 18). The Government opposes both Motions.

In plaintiff's Motion for Court Supervised Mediation,

plaintiff indicates he is willing to participate in a mediation

and he will do his best to obtain the participation of other

private homeowners in the area who the Court feels are necessary

to the mediation.1

 (Doc. 18). The Government's opposition

rightly points out that the Motion does not indicate who would be

willing to participate. It appears that plaintiff has attempted

to garner support for a mediation but there is no indication that

others will in fact participate. As a result, the Motion for

Court Supervised Mediation will be denied without prejudice. As

the Court previously indicated, all potentially affected

homeowners would have to participate in the mediation for it to

have any chance of success. If, in the future, plaintiff is able

to obtain the commitment by all potentially affected persons to

Case 3:04-cv-02352-MHB Document 27 Filed 05/11/06 Page 2 of 8
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

participate, the Court will reconsider the Motion.

In plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction, he asks the

Court to enter an injunction that would allow plaintiff and

homeowners in the area to use the section of Forest Service

Trail/Road which is the subject of this litigation. He argues

there is extreme fire danger in the area and the road will be

needed for firefighting. He states there have been three major

fires in the area since the Prescott National Forest closed the

road in 2001. He argues that opening the road to general usage

would benefit the Lone Star/Mohawk Property Owners Association

members and that such use would cause little harm as "Trail 67,"

the closed segment, is open to travel except for 281 feet. 

Plaintiff states this closure affects him on a daily basis and the

Forest Service had no justification for closure. Plaintiff

requests ". . .the decision be set aside immediately, and that PNF

enjoined from enforcing prohibition of motorized use until a final

determination by the Court in this matter." (Doc. 21 at p. 2). 

Defendants oppose the Motion arguing that plaintiff has not

carried his burden of showing the need for and right to injunctive

relief. Defendants argue that preliminary injunctive relief is to

preserve the status quo rather than litigate the merits on a

preliminary basis. Textile Unlimited, Inc. v. A.BMH & Company,

Inc., 240 F.3d 781, 786 (9th Cir. 2001). 

As plaintiff concedes, the trail has been closed to motorized

traffic since 2001. This is supported by the administrative

record as well. As the Government also points out, the use of

Trail 67 for firefighting purposes is an excepted use under the

Case 3:04-cv-02352-MHB Document 27 Filed 05/11/06 Page 3 of 8
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 4

Prescott National Forest order closing the trail. The Walker Fire

Department has a special use permit for emergency conditions. AR

No. 219.

The purpose of a preliminary injunction is to preserve the

status quo among the parties pending the outcome of the action. 

Regents of the University of California v. A.B.C., Inc., 747 F.2d

511, 514 (9th Cir. 1984). "To obtain a preliminary injunction, a

party must show either (1) a likelihood of success on the merits

and the possibility of irreparable injury, or (2) the existence of

serious questions going to the merits and the balance of hardships

tipping in movant's favor." Diamontiney v. Borg, 918 F.2d 793,

795 (9th Cir. 1990). The two requirements must be considered on a

sliding scale. Id. The movant is required to demonstrate a

significant threat of irreparable injury under either formulation. 

See AGCC v. Coalition for Economic Equity, 950 F.2d 1401, 1410

(9th Cir. 1991). A preliminary injunction is an extraordinary and

drastic remedy and will not be granted absent a clear showing of

likely success in the underlying claim and possible irreparable

injury. See Mazurek v. Armstrong, 520 U.S. 968, 972 (1997). In

addition, the party seeking the injunction "must necessarily

establish a relationship between the injury claimed in the motion

and the conduct asserted in the complaint." Devose v. Herrington,

42 F.3d 470, 471 (8th Cir. 1994). In other words, a plaintiff

must seek injunctive relief related to the merits of his

underlying claim. 

In this case, plaintiff seeks injunctive relief to alter the

status quo. Presently, and since 2001, Trail 67 has been closed

Case 3:04-cv-02352-MHB Document 27 Filed 05/11/06 Page 4 of 8
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 5

to motorized traffic. Since that time, the road has been

available for emergency use such as firefighting. Plaintiff seeks

an injunction opening the road to motorized use. This would alter

the status quo since 2001. Plaintiff's articulated threat of

injury is fire damage. However, the road is open and available

for use for firefighting. Plaintiff indicates the road is not

maintained unless it is used regularly. However, this is unclear

to the Court. Since granting an injunction would alter the status

quo, plaintiff has not shown a likelihood of success on the merits

and plaintiff's argument for irreparable injury does not appear to

be supported by the record (as Trail 67 is available for

firefighting use.) Plaintiff's Motion for Temporary Injunction

is denied.

Finally, plaintiff has filed a Motion to Supplement the

administrative record. Plaintiff's Motion indicates he believes

an additional 32 documents should be in the administrative record

and included for consideration by the Court. He states he has

included copies of these where possible. However, he indicates

that some of the essential records have been destroyed and/or

could not be located by the Prescott National Forest. The

defendants oppose plaintiff's Motion to Supplement the

administrative record arguing that plaintiff has the burden of

demonstrating it is necessary to admit extra record material and

showing that the administrative record in the case is deficient. 

Defendants cite Animal Defense Council v. Hodel, 840 F.2d 1432,

1436-38 (9th Cir. 1988). Defendants argue that the exceptions to

the rule precluding review of extra record materials is extremely

Case 3:04-cv-02352-MHB Document 27 Filed 05/11/06 Page 5 of 8
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 6

narrow and plaintiff has failed to demonstrate what exception

applies and carry his burden. Finally, defendants argue that some

of plaintiff's documents are post decision (for example No. 32),

Congressional correspondence (11 and 29), some of the items are

already in the administrative record (Nos. 3, 15, 19, 22, 27 and

31), and the remaining documents are irrelevant or already covered

by the record submitted by the agency (Nos. 5, 8, 10, 13, 23, 24

and 28). (Doc. 26). 

Proceedings under the Administrative Procedures Act, 

5 U.S.C. § 702, et seq. for review of agency action involve a

review of an administrative record. The scope of review is set

forth in 5 U.S.C. § 706 as a review of ". . .the whole record or

those parts of it cited by a party. . ." The Court may set aside

agency action if it is "arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of

discretion. . ." 5 U.S.C. § 706(2). 

"Review of agency action is limited to the record considered

and relied upon by the agency at the time a decision is made." 

Wilderness Society v. Dombeck, 168 F.3d 367, 377 (9th Cir. 1999)

(citing National Wildlife Federation v. Burford, 871 F.2d 849, 855

(9th Cir. 1989)). The United States Forest Service has filed the

administrative record (Vols. I - III) indicating these are the

documents that were considered and form the basis for its

decision. (Doc. 17). Generally, review is limited to this

record. Animal Defense Council v. Hodel, 840 F.2d 1432, 1436 (9th

Cir. 1988). In Southwest Center v. U.S. Forest Service, 100 F.3d

1443, 1450 (9th Cir. 1996), the Court stated:

. . .Review may, however, be expanded beyond the record

Case 3:04-cv-02352-MHB Document 27 Filed 05/11/06 Page 6 of 8
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 7

if necessary to explain agency decisions. Animal Defense

Council v. Hodel, 840 F.2d 1432, 1436 (9th Cir. 1988). 

This circuit has only allowed extra-record materials:

(1) if necessary to determine "whether the agency has

considered all relevant factors and has explained its decision,"

 (2) "when the agency has relied on documents not in the

record," or (3) "when supplementing the record is necessary to

explain technical terms or complex subject matter."

 

Plaintiff's Motion to Supplement the administrative record merely

states that plaintiff believes certain documents should be part of

the administrative record and asks that they be included. The

basis for asking they be included in the administrative record is

limited to the following statement: 

Some essential records of the 1989 RA/TM (Resource Access

and Travel Management) have been reported destroyed

and/or could not be located by the Prescott National

Forest (PNF) [Administrative Record Item Tab 16 P-2 of 2

Mid Page "No documentation of RATM decision to change TR

67 from motorized. . .can't find it!"]. The plaintiff

feels these include (necessarily by reference only). . .

(Doc. 22 at p. 1). 

Plaintiff then lists 32 categories of documents he wishes to be

included in the administrative record. In short, plaintiff's

Motion to Supplement is based on his feeling that these additional

32 categories of documents must have been before the Forest

Service at the time of its decision and must have been part of the

decision-making process. He states he feels this because he has

been told that documents were destroyed or cannot be located. 

However, there is no showing the 32 categories of documents

plaintiff seeks included are the records reported destroyed or

that could not be located. As pointed out by the Government, many

of his documents are already in the record and some post-date the

decision which is before the Court. Obviously, plaintiff has

Case 3:04-cv-02352-MHB Document 27 Filed 05/11/06 Page 7 of 8
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

8

failed to make a showing that these documents were before the

agency and were part of the decision-making process. He has also

failed to show they fall in one of the other categories that would

allow their inclusion in the administrative record. 

Defendant has agreed the record may be supplemented by

plaintiff's Item No. 14. (Doc. 26 at footnote 3). Therefore,

plaintiff's Item No. 14 will be added to the administrative

record. 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED denying plaintiff's Motion to

Supplement the administrative record except as to plaintiff's Item

No. 14 which will be included. (Doc. 22).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying without prejudice plaintiff's

Motion for Court Supervised Mediation. (Doc. 18).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying plaintiff's Motion for

Preliminary Injunction. (Doc. 21).

DATED this 10th day of May, 2006.

Case 3:04-cv-02352-MHB Document 27 Filed 05/11/06 Page 8 of 8