Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_00-cv-01239/USCOURTS-cand-3_00-cv-01239-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 893
Nature of Suit: Environmental Matters
Cause of Action: 42:4321 Review of Agency Action-Environment

---

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

HIGH SIERRA HIKERS ASSN, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

BERNIE WEINGARDT, et al.,

Defendants. /

No. C-00-01239 EDL

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION TO EXTEND THE

INJUNCTION

On January 9, 2002, the Court issued an injunction placing restrictions on the United States

Forest Service’s issuance or denial of special use permits to pack stations in certain wilderness areas

in the Inyo and Sierra National Forests. See Jan. 9, 2002 Order at 10:23-12:20. Those restrictions

applied pending completion by the Forest Service by December 31, 2005 of environmental analysis

under the National Environmental Policy Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 4321-4370d, of the cumulative impacts

of pack stock operations, and by December 31, 2006 of site-specific environmental analyses for each

permitee. Id. 

Subsequently, on December 27, 2005, the Forest Service issued a Final Environmental

Impact Statement and Record of Decision for the Trail and Commercial Pack Stock Management in

the Ansel Adams and John Muir Wildernesses (“2005 ROD”) that included new management

direction for those wilderness areas and for the Dinkey Lakes Wilderness. Plaintiffs filed an

administrative appeal of the 2005 ROD, which was denied. Plaintiffs have filed an amended

complaint in this case challenging the 2005 ROD, and the Court has set a hearing date of June 19,

2007 for the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment. 

In their motion to extend the injunction, Plaintiffs argue that the 2002 injunction should

Case 3:00-cv-01239-EDL Document 280 Filed 11/14/06 Page 1 of 2
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

2

remain in effect until the Court issues a ruling on the cross-motions for summary judgment. 

Defendants and Defendants/Intervenors oppose Plaintiff’s motion. The Court held a hearing on

November 14, 2006. 

The decision of whether to modify the injunction is within the Court’s discretion. See

Bellevue Manor Associates v. United States, 165 F.3d 1249 1255 (9th Cir. 1999) (holding that

standard from Rufo v. Inmates of Suffolk County Jail, 502 U.S. 367 (1992) applies to motions to

modify decrees and injunctions under Rule 60(b): “There must be ‘a significant change in facts or

law that warrants revision of the decree,’ and ‘the proposed modification must be tailored to the

changed circumstance.’”). As stated at the hearing, Plaintiffs have failed to make a showing to

justify extension of the injunction. Therefore, the Court declines to extend the terms of the

injunction, and Plaintiff’s motion is denied. If, however, Plaintiff can make a focused showing that

there are certain areas of specific concern that require interim protection in light of the Ninth

Circuit’s ruling regarding possible further remedial relief for the violation of the Wilderness Act,

Plaintiff can seek appropriate relief from the Court. See High Sierra Hikers v. Blackwell, 390 F.3d

630, 649 (9th Cir. 2004) (stating that the “relief granted by the injunction in practicality addresses

most of the substantive violations of the Wilderness Act pending the Forest Service’s compliance

with NEPA,” but that “the injunction does not address remediation of any degradation that may have

been caused by packstock services before the 2001 Needs Assessment.”). In the meantime, Plaintiff

may conduct discovery, if necessary, after reviewing the administrative record on this issue.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 14, 2006 

ELIZABETH D. LAPORTE

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:00-cv-01239-EDL Document 280 Filed 11/14/06 Page 2 of 2