Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-01072/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-01072-13/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1362 Declaration re: Indian Tribal Water Rights

---

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 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

WINNEMEM WINTU TRIBE, in their 

tribal and individual capacities, et al., 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

UNITED STATES FOREST SERVICE, 

Defendant. 

No. 2:09-cv-01072-KJM-KJN 

ORDER 

On March 31, 2016, this court found Defendant had not satisfied the requirements 

of the NHPA and, in relevant part, granted Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment on Claim 

Three, the Coonrod cultural site. Mar. 31, 2016 Order 21:12–23:16, ECF No. 147. Underpinning 

the court’s decision was its determination that the Winnemen Wintu Tribe (WWT) is a 

“consulting party as defined under 36 C.F.R. § 800.2[.]” Id. At the end of its order, the court set 

a briefing schedule for parties to address the issue of remedies for Claim Three. Id. at 29:1–3. 

On May 6, 2016, Plaintiffs filed a supplemental brief in support of remedies for 

the Coonrod cultural site. ECF No. 149. Defendant filed a concurrent supplemental brief 

addressing the issue of remedies. ECF No. 150. In addition to addressing the issue of remedies, 

Defendant makes the following argument in its supplemental briefing: 

Case 2:09-cv-01072-KJM-KJN Document 157 Filed 08/17/16 Page 1 of 2
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

The Court erred in finding that [P]laintiffs were entitled to 

consulting party status under sections 800.2(c)(5) and 800.2(d) . . . . 

Because plaintiffs did not have consulting party status under section 

800.2(c)(5), the Forest Service was not required to consult with 

them . . . . Therefore, the Court is not authorized by § 706(1) of the 

APA to compel the Forest Service to grant that status to plaintiffs, 

or to consult with plaintiffs about the Bartle Allotment grazing 

permit[.] 

Def.’s Br. 5:1-2, 6:21-27, ECF No. 150. 

On June 17, 2016, Plaintiffs filed a reply brief in which they argued that 

“[Defendant] spends a large part of its supplemental brief arguing that the court should revisit its 

decision affording the WWT consulting party status. Yet this is not a motion for reconsideration.” 

Def.’s Reply Br. 13:11-13, ECF No. 155 (emphasis in original). On the same date, Defendant 

also filed a reply brief. ECF No. 156. 

The parties are hereby ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE why the court should not 

construe Defendant’s supplemental brief on the issue of remedies as a motion for reconsideration, 

and set a schedule for Plaintiffs’ substantive response to the motion so construed. 

DATED: August 16, 2016 

Case 2:09-cv-01072-KJM-KJN Document 157 Filed 08/17/16 Page 2 of 2