Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00905/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00905-25/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 893
Nature of Suit: Environmental Matters
Cause of Action: 42:4332 Environmental Policy - Coop of Agency Reports

---

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

 Current U.S. Forest Service Chief Gail Kimbell is 1

“automatically substituted” for former Forest Service Chief Dale

Bosworth, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(d).

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CALIFORNIA FORESTRY ASSOCIATION No. 2:05-cv-00905-MCE-GGH 

and AMERICAN FOREST & PAPER

ASSOCIATION,

Plaintiff,

v.

GAIL KIMBELL, Chief, United ORDER 1

States Forest Service;

MIKE JOHANNS, Secretary. 

United States Department of

Agriculture; JACK A. BLACKWELL,

Regional Forester, Pacific

Southwest Region, 

Defendants.

and

SIERRA NEVADA FOREST PROTECTION

CAMPAIGN, et al.,

Intervenor-Defendants.

///

///

Case 2:05-cv-00905-MCE-EFB Document 144 Filed 01/09/09 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

On September 24 2008, this Court denied Plaintiffs’ Motion

for Summary Judgment, except to the limited extent that the

Court, in reliance on the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Sierra

Forest Legacy v. Rey, 526 F.3d 1228, 1231-32 (9th Cir. 2008),

found that the Forest Service violated the National Environmental

Policy Act (“NEPA”) by failing to consider a sufficient range of

alternatives in adopting the 2004 Framework. Summary

adjudication in favor of Plaintiffs was granted on that issue, as

set forth in the Second Cause of Action. Correspondingly, the

Forest Service’s Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment was granted in

its entirety except as to the Second Cause of Action.

Given the Court’s directive ordering separate briefing as to

the question of remedy following its liability findings as set

forth above, those issues were briefed by the parties and a

hearing set for December 19, 2008.

Plaintiffs have advised the Court that they request no

further remedy, and simply ask that the declaratory relief

awarded in the Court’s September 24, 2008 Memorandum and Order be

reduced to judgment. As set forth in the concurrently filed

remedy orders entered in the related cases of Sierra Nevada Forest

Protection Campaign v. Rey, No. 2:05-cv-0205-MCE-GGH, and People

of the State of California v. United States Dept. of Agriculture,

No. 2:05-cv-0211-MCE-GGH, however, counsel for DefendantIntervenors Quincy Library Group and TuCare, et al. have advised

the Court that Petitions for Rehearing have been filed as to the

Ninth Circuit’s panel decision in Sierra Forest Legacy v. Rey,

supra, and that the Ninth Circuit had ordered Plaintiff in that

case to respond to those petitions by August 22, 2008. 

Case 2:05-cv-00905-MCE-EFB Document 144 Filed 01/09/09 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

Although the parties indicate that all papers regarding the

rehearing petitions were filed by September 17, 2008, no decision

on the petitions have been forthcoming. Accordingly, mandate back

to this Court under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 41(b) has

not yet issued.

Given the fact that the appellate decision underlying this

Court’s finding on behalf of Plaintiffs in this matter remains

non-final given the pending rehearing petitions, and in view of

recent developments which may inform the Ninth Circuit’s ultimate

decision whether to take the matter en banc, including not only

the Ninth Circuit’s own subsequent decision in Lands Council v.

McNair, 537 F.3d 981 (9th Cir. 2008), but also the Supreme

Court’s even more recent pronouncement in Winter v. Natural

Resources Defense Council, 129 S. Ct. 365 (2008), this Court

believes it would be premature to fashion a remedy, and enter any

final judgment in this matter, until after the rehearing

petitions have been adjudicated and mandate has been formally

transferred back to the Court. As counsel for the IntervenorDefendants have pointed out, any district court proceedings on a

remedy while logically antecedent issues remain before an

appellate court may ultimately be null and void, and may

consequently have to be redone following the issuance of mandate. 

See Kusay v. United States, 62 F.3d 192, 193-96 (7th Cir. 1995);

United States v. Thorp, 655 F.2d 997, 999 (9th Cir. 1981). The

Court wishes to avoid any potential waste of judicial resources

in that regard and therefore declines to act on the question of

remedy before the aforementioned decision in Sierra Forest Legacy

v. Rey is final and mandate to this Court has been issued.

Case 2:05-cv-00905-MCE-EFB Document 144 Filed 01/09/09 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

4

If the panel opinion in Rey is vacated, the need for a remedies

hearing may be entirely obviated should this Court then determine

that the 2004 Framework’s consideration of project alternatives

was otherwise sufficient.

Plaintiffs are directed to notify the Court once a decision

on the rehearing petitions in Rey has been made. At that point,

the instant remedies hearing will be rescheduled as necessary.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 9, 2009

_____________________________

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:05-cv-00905-MCE-EFB Document 144 Filed 01/09/09 Page 4 of 4