Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_04-cv-04275/USCOURTS-cand-4_04-cv-04275-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 893
Nature of Suit: Environmental Matters
Cause of Action: 16:1538 Endangered Species Act

---

United States District Court

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KARUK TRIBE OF CALIFORNIA, 

Plaintiff,

 v.

UNITED STATES FOREST SERVICE, et al.,

Defendants.

_______________________________________

No. C 04-4275 SBA

 

ORDER

[Docket Nos. 73]

This matter comes before the Court on the Motion ofSiskiyouRegional Education Project for Leave

to File a Brief as an Amicus Curiae ("Siskiyou Project's Motion for Leave to File an Amicus Brief") [Docket

No. 73]. Having read and considered the arguments presented in the papers submitted to the Court, the Court

findsthis matter appropriate forresolutionwithout a hearing. The Court hereby DENIES the Siskiyou Project's

Motion for Leave to File an Amicus Brief. 

BACKGROUND

A. Procedural Background

On October 8, 2004, Plaintifffiled a Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief against the United

States Forest Service, Jeff Walters, and MargaretBoland (collectively, "Defendants"). On October 15, 2004,

Plaintifffiled an Amended Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief ("Amended Complaint"). Pursuant

to a stipulationbetween the parties, Plaintiff's Amended Complaintwas dismissedwithout prejudice on January

24, 2005. 

On January 31, 2005, Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint. Plaintiff's Second Amended

Complaint seeks declaratory and injunctive relief arising from Defendants' allegedly improper management of

suction dredge and other mining operations in waterways and riparian areas within the KlamathNationalForest

in northern California. Id. ¶ 1. The Second Amended Complaint challenges Forest Service decisions allowing

suction dredge and other mining operations to occur pursuant to a Notice of Intent ("NOI") instead of a Plan

Case 4:04-cv-04275-SBA Document 102 Filed 07/01/05 Page 1 of 4
United States District Court

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

Initially, the Second Amended Complaint also challenged five instances in which the Forest Service

required a PoO, but allegedly failed to comply with the additional requirements a PoO triggers. Id. ¶ 3.

However, these allegations, and Defendant Jeff Walters, were dismissed from the lawsuit pursuant to a

stipulation between the parties. 

2

of Operation ("PoO"). Id. ¶ 2.1

On March 1, 2005, the New 49'ers and Koons (hereinafter the "Miners") filed a Motion to Intervene.

On April 26, 2005, the Court granted the Miners' Motion to Intervene, but imposed certain limitations on the

scope of the Miners' intervention. The Miners were also expressly informed that they would be required to

adhere to the briefing schedule ordered by the Court at the April 26, 2005 Case Management Conference with

respect to Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment. 

On April 29, 2005, Plaintifffiled a Motion for Summary Judgment. On May 17, 2005, as ordered by

the Court at the Case Management Conference, Defendants and the Miners filed oppositions to Plaintiff's

Motion for Summary Judgment. 

On May 20, 2005, the Siskiyou Regional Education Project filed the instant Motion forLeave to File

an Amicus Brief. 

On May 24, 2005, Plaintifffiled a consolidated reply to Defendants' and the Miners' opposition briefs.

On June 7, 2005, Defendants filed an opposition to Siskiyou's Motion for Leave to File an Amicus

Brief.

LEGAL STANDARD

The purpose of an amicus curiae is "to call the court's attention to law or facts or circumstances in a

matter then before it thatmay otherwise escape its consideration." 4 Am. Jur. 2d Amicus Curiae § 6 (2004).

The Ninth Circuit has held that the role of an amicus is to "assist[] in a case of general public interest,

supplement[] the efforts of counsel, and draw[]the court's attention to law that escaped consideration." MillerWohl Co., Inc. v. Commissioner of Labor and Indus., 694 F.2d 203, 204 (9th Cir. 1982). An amicus

cannotraise issues not already raised by the parties themselves. National Comm'n on Egg Nutrition v.FTC,

570 F.2d 157, 160 n.3 (7th Cir. 1977). Further, the information submitted by an amicus must be "timely,

useful, or otherwise necessary to the administration of justice." United States v. Michigan, 940 F.2d 143,

165 (6th Cir. 1991). 

Case 4:04-cv-04275-SBA Document 102 Filed 07/01/05 Page 2 of 4
United States District Court

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

3

ANALYSIS

In Siskiyou Project's Motion for Leave to File an Amicus Brief, the Siskiyou Regional Education

Project (hereinafter "Siskiyou Project") seeks leave to file an amicus brief in support of Plaintiff's Motion for

Summary Judgment. The Siskiyou Project is a non-profit conservation and education group based in Cave

Junction, Oregon that has been involved in numerous lawsuits against the Forest Service. Siskiyou Mot. at

1:11-19. In fact, the Siskiyou Project is currently litigating against the Forest Service in the United States

District Court of Oregon. Id. at 1:24. Through its proposed amicus brief, the Siskiyou Project seeks to

provide the court with the "history of the development and implementation of [standard] MM-1 [of the

Northwest Forest Plan]." Id. at 1:23-24. 

Whether to permit a nonparty to submit an amicus brief is a matter of judicial discretion. National

Organization for Women, Inc. v. Scheidler, 223 F.3d 615, 616 (7th Cir. 2000). Although the function of

an amicus is to assist the Court, it is also recognized that "[a]micus curiae briefs can be a real burden on the

court . . . [and can] impose[] a burden of study and . . . response on the parties." Id. Accordingly, it is of the

utmost importance that the amicus brief be "timely, useful, or otherwise necessary to the administration of

justice." Michigan, 940 F.2d at 165.

Here, it is beyond dispute that the proposed amicus briefis untimely. Indeed, despite the fact that this

case has been pending since October 2004, the SiskiyouProjectsought leave to file an amicus brief only four

days before Plaintiff'sreply briefwas due, and,significantly,severaldays after Defendants' only scheduled brief

on the merits was filed. Incomprehensibly, the Siskiyou Project also noticed its Motion to be heard a week

after the scheduled hearing on Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment. The Court finds the untimeliness of

the SiskiyouProject's Motionsimply inexcusable, especially in light offact that Plaintiff and the SiskiyouProject

share the same legal counsel. See Def's Opp. to Siskiyou Mot. at Ex. 1. 

Moreover, the Court finds that the proposed amicus brief is not useful or otherwise necessary to the

administration of justice. The Siskiyou Project's subjective belief that it is in a better position than the Forest

Service, or Plaintiff, to provide the courtwitha historyofthe development and implementationofthe Northwest

Forest Plan is without merit. In fact, it is clear that the Siskiyou Project's perspective is highly partisan and

completely dependent upon an administrative record that was created as a result of its own litigation against

Case 4:04-cv-04275-SBA Document 102 Filed 07/01/05 Page 3 of 4
United States District Court

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

4

the Forest Service. Further, the documents the Siskiyou Project refers to in its proposed brief are neither

properly authenticated nor complete. Indeed, the Siskiyou Project appears to have selectively "hand-picked"

documentsfromthe administrative record created in its own case and has not provided the Court withcomplete

copies of many of the documents. Moreover, most of the documents the Siskiyou Project refers to in its

proposed brief concern the Siskiyou National Forest and are therefore of questionable relevance here. Due

to these numerous deficiencies, the Court DENIES the Siskiyou Project' Motion for Leave to File an Amicus

Brief. 

CONCLUSION

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT Siskiyou Project's Motion for Leave to File an Amicus Brief

[Docket No. 73] is DENIED. Accordingly, the Siskiyou Project's proposed amicus brief is STRICKEN

FROM THE RECORD. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 s/Saundra Brown Armstrong 

Dated: 6/30/05 SAUNDRA BROWN ARMSTRONG

United States District Judge

Case 4:04-cv-04275-SBA Document 102 Filed 07/01/05 Page 4 of 4