Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_04-cv-04275/USCOURTS-cand-4_04-cv-04275-3/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. 76, 77]

This matter comes before the Court on Walter H. Eason Jr.'s Motion to Intervene [Docket No. 76].

Having read and considered the arguments presented by the parties and Walter H. Eason Jr. ("Eason") in the

papers submitted to the Court, the Court finds this matter appropriate for resolution without a hearing. The

Court hereby DENIES Eason's Motion to Intervene. 

BACKGROUND

A. Factual Background

Plaintiff Karuk Tribe of California ("Plaintiff" or the "Tribe") is a federally-recognized Indian Tribe

located in Happy Camp, California. Second Amended Complaint ("SAC") ¶ 11. The Tribe works to

protect certain fish species and the water quality of the streams and rivers on the Six Rivers and Klamath

National Forests. Id. ¶ 12. 

Defendant United States Forest Service ("Forest Service") is an agency of the United States

Department of Agriculture. Id. ¶ 16. Defendant Margaret Boland is the Supervisor for the Kalamath

National Forest. Id. The Forest Service is responsible for implementing all laws and regulations relating to

the management of the Six Rivers and Klamath National Forests. Id. ¶ 16. 

Intervenor The New 49'ers, Inc. (the "New 49'ers") is a California corporation with a principal

place of business in Happy Camp, California. Miners' Answer to Second Amended Complaint ("Miners'

Answer") ¶ 3. The New 49'ers own or control numerous mining claims in a 60-mile area surrounding the

Case 4:04-cv-04275-SBA Document 94 Filed 06/13/05 Page 1 of 6
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

1The Second Amended Complaint also challenged five instances in which the Forest Service required

a PoO, but allegedly failed to comply with the additionalrequirements a PoO triggers. Id. ¶ 3. However, these

allegations, and Defendant Jeff Walters, have beendismissed fromthe lawsuit pursuant to a stipulationbetween

the parties. 

2

Salmon, Klamath, and Scott Rivers. SAC ¶¶ 36-37. The New 49'ers also leases many of its mining claims

located along these rivers to its members. Miners' Answer ¶ 3. Intervenor Raymond W. Koons ("Koons")

is an individual who resides in Happy Camp. Id. He is also the owner of several unpatented mining claims

located around the Klamath River. Id. Koons leases his mining claims to the 49'ers. Id. 

B. Procedural Background

On October 8, 2004, Plaintifffiled aComplaintfor Declaratory and Injunctive Relief against the United

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

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

to a stipulationbetween the parties, Plaintiff's Amended Complaint was dismissed without 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, mechanical sluicing, and other mining operations in waterways and riparian areas within the

Klamath National Forest in northern California. Id. ¶ 1. The Second Amended Complaint challenges two

Directives issued by the Forest Service regarding the regulationofmining operations, including suction dredge

mining operations in waterways and riparian areas, and four Forest Service decisions allowing suction dredge

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

("PoO"). Id. ¶ 2.1

The Second Amended Complaint is brought under the following statutory and regulatory schemes:(1)

the Endangered Species Act ("ESA"); (2) the National Forest Management Act ("NFMA"); (3) the Organic

Act; (4) the Organic Act's special use regulations; (5) the Forest Service's Mining regulations; (6) the Clean

Water Act ("CWA"); and (7) the National Environmental Policy Act ("NEPA"). Id. ¶¶ 94-127. Plaintiff

asserts jurisdictionunder the Administrative Procedure Act ("APA") and the citizen suit provision of the ESA.

Id. ¶ 8. 

Case 4:04-cv-04275-SBA Document 94 Filed 06/13/05 Page 2 of 6
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

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 19, 2005, Eason filed the instant Motion to Intervene. 

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

On May 31, 2005, Plaintiff and Defendants filed oppositions to Eason's Motion to Intervene.

LEGAL STANDARD

A. Permissive Intervention

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(b)(2) governs permissive intervention. Rule 24(b)(2) states in

pertinent part: 

Upon timely application anyone may be permitted to intervene in an action: (1)

when a statute of the United States confers a conditional right to intervene; or (2)

when an applicant's claim or defense and the main action have a question of law

or fact in common .... In exercising its discretion the court shall consider whether

the intervention will unduly delay or prejudice the adjudication of the rights of the

original parties. 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(b)(2). 

An application who seeks permissive intervention must prove that he meets three threshold

requirements:(1) a common question oflaw or factwith the main action; (2) timeliness; and (3) an independent

basis forjurisdictionover the applicant's claims. Northwest Forest Resource Council v. Glickman, 82 F.3d

825, 839 (9th Cir. 1996); accord Donnelly v. Glickman, 159 F.3d 405, 412 (9th Cir. 1998). Even if an

applicantsatisfiesthose threshold requirements, the Court has discretion to deny permissive intervention. See

Orange County v. Air Cal., 799 F.2d 535, 539 (9th Cir. 1986) ("Permissive interventionis committed to the

broad discretion ofthe district court"); Spangler v. Pasadena Bd. of Educ., 552 F.2d 1326, 1329 (9th Cir.

1977). In exercising its discretion, the Court shall consider whether intervention will unduly delay the main

Case 4:04-cv-04275-SBA Document 94 Filed 06/13/05 Page 3 of 6
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

action or will unfairly prejudice the existing parties. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(b)(2).

B. Amicus Curiae

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 that may 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 thatescaped consideration." MillerWohl Co., Inc. v. Commissioner of Labor and Indus., 694 F.2d 203, 204 (9th Cir. 1982). An amicus

cannotraise issues notalready 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). 

ANALYSIS

In his Motion to Intervene,Easonseeks the Court's permission to intervene in this action so that he may

file an opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment. Alternatively, Eason seeks the Court's

permission to file his opposition brief as an amicus curiae. 

As a preliminary matter, the Court notes that Eason's Motion to Intervene fails to comply with the

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Civil Local Rules. Specifically, Eason's motion fails to set forth any

argument, or authorities, in support ofhis request to intervene. Instead, he vaguely refers to the Miners' Motion

to Intervene and declares that the Miners' briefing is "incorporated by . . . reference." This falls woefully short

of what is required under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24 and Civil Local Rule 7-4(a). See Fed. R. Civ.

P. 24(c) ("A person desiring to intervene shall serve a motion to intervene upon the parties . . . [t]he motion

shall state the grounds therefor and shall be accompanied by a pleading setting forth the claim or defense for

which intervention is sought."); see Civ. Local R. 7-4(a). Additionally, Eason has failed to comply with the

requirement in this Court's standing orders that all parties meet and confer priorto filing any motion. Although

Eason claims to have consulted with the attorney for the Miners before filing his motion, he apparently made

no effort to contact either Plaintiff or Defendants. 

Further, Eason's Motion to Intervene – filed on May 19, 2005 — is undisputedly untimely. Indeed,

Case 4:04-cv-04275-SBA Document 94 Filed 06/13/05 Page 4 of 6
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

5

Eason concedes this very fact by stating in his motion that he "attempted to confer with [counselforthe Miners]

concerning the matters presented in . . . [Eason's proposed opposition to the] Motion for Summary Judgment

. . . [but] there was not enough time to debate them fully with him." Mot. to Intervene at 2:6-9

(emphasis added). Eason is the only one to blame for the untimeliness of his motion. This case has been

pending since October 2004. The parties' Joint Case Management Conference Statement, whichwas filed on

March 29, 2005 and is a matter of public record, indicated that the parties agreed to resolve this dispute on

an expedited basis by filing a motion for summary judgment to be heard on or before the commencement of

the mining season in July 2005. Pursuant to the parties' agreement, the Court approved a June 21, 2005

hearing for Plaintiff's Motion forSummary Judgment. Due to the complexity of the case, including the need for

the Court to review a voluminous administrative record, the Court ordered the parties to submit their papers

such that briefing on this matter would be closed by May 24, 2005. Although the Court granted the Miners'

Motion to Intervene, it did so only with the express condition that the Miners be held to the briefing schedule

ordered by the Court. Eason has not presented the Court with any compelling reason why the Court should

permit him to intervene after all of the briefing on this matter has been submitted. 

In fact, permitting Eason to intervene at this stage in the proceedings would be prejudicialto the parties.

Eason's proposed opposition brief asserts many novel legal theories that would needlessly distract this Court

fromthe task at hand, which is a review of the administrative record pursuant to the Administrative Procedure

Act. Specifically, Eason's proposed opposition brief asserts that: (1) the Forest Service lacks jurisdiction to

regulate section drudge mining becauseCalifornia holds title to the streambeds ofnavigable waters on National

Forest Systemland;(2) thatCalifornia state mining permits are the equivalent ofthe plan ofoperations required

byfederalregulations; and (3) that the Forest Service lacks jurisdictionto regulate mining in all areas designated

as "mineral lands." As noted by Defendants, Eason has not even demonstrated that he, or any other current

party to the litigation, has standing to assert many of these claims. See Northern Plains Res. Council v.

Lujan, 874 F.2d 661, 667 (9th Cir. 1989). Further, even as an amicus, Eason is not entitled to interject new

issues into the proceedings that have not already been raised by the parties themselves. See, e.g., National

Comm'n on Egg Nutrition v. FTC, 570 F.2d at 160 n.3 (7th Cir. 1977). Since Eason has not provided the

Court with any information that is timely, useful, or otherwise necessary to the administration of justice, and

Case 4:04-cv-04275-SBA Document 94 Filed 06/13/05 Page 5 of 6
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

6

since Eason's intervention at this stage in the proceedings would prejudice the parties and needlessly cause

delay, the Court hereby DENIES Eason's Motion to Intervene and DENIES Eason's alternate request to

proceed as an amicus curiae. 

CONCLUSION

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT Eason's Motion to Intervene [Docket No. 76] is DENIED.

Accordingly, Eason's Proposed Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment [Docket No. 77] is

hereby STRICKEN FROM THE RECORD. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 /s/ Saundra Brown Armstrong 

Dated: 6-13-05 SAUNDRA BROWN ARMSTRONG

United States District Judge

Case 4:04-cv-04275-SBA Document 94 Filed 06/13/05 Page 6 of 6