N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT C ENTER FOR B IOLOGIC A L DIVER SITY; SIERR

AC LUB ; GR

AND C ANYON W ILDLANDS C O UNC IL, Plaintiffs - Appe lla nts, v. UNITED STATES FOR

EST SER VIC E, De fe nda

nt - Appe lle e . No. 13-16684 D.C . No. 3:12-c v-08176-SM M M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ariz o na Ste phe n M . M c Nam e e , Se n i or Distric t Judge , Pre s iding Argue d and Subm i tte d Nove m

be r 18, 2015 San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : M c KEOW

N, R AW L INSON, and PAR

KER , ** C i rc uit Judge s. The C e nte r for B iologic a l Dive rsity , Sie rra C l ub, a nd Gra n d C any on W ildla nds C ounc il (c olle c tive ly

the “ C e nte r” ) a

ppe a l the distric t c ourt’ s dism issa l



# FIL ED JAN 12 2016 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S . CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The Honora

ble B arrington D. Pa

rke r, Jr., Se nior C i rc u it Judgefor the U.S. C ourt of Appe a l s for the Se c ond C irc uit, sitting by de signa tion.of the ir c om

p la int unde r Fe d. R . C iv. P. 12(b)(1) for la c k of subje c t m atte r jurisdic tion on Artic le III sta nding grounds. The

c om pla i nt wa s brought under the c itiz e n-suit provision of the R e s ourc e C onse rvation a nd R e c ove ry

Ac t (“ R C R

A” ). 42 U.S.C . § 6972(a)(1)(B ). The C e nte r a lle ge d tha t the Fore st Se rvic e fa ile d to re gula te t he disposa l of spe n t le a d am m unition in the

Ka iba b Nationa l Fore st, thus m aking theFore s t Se rvic e lia ble a s a “ c ontributor”to a

n “ im m ine nt a n d substa ntia l e nda nge rm e nt to he a lth or thee nvironm e nt” by pe rm itting the

poisoning of C a lifornia c ondors a

nd othe r wildlife . W e c onc lude the C e nte r ha s Artic l e III sta nding. B e c a

use the distric t

c ourt did not ha

ve oc c a s ion to de c i de the Fore st Se rvic e ’ s R

ule 12(b)(6) m otion to dism iss for fa i lure to sta

t e a c la im , we re ve rse and re m and. At the m otion to dism

iss sta ge , the C e nte r be ars the burde n of ple a ding suffic i e nt fa c ts to show the re is a n injury in fa c t, tha

t the injury is fa i rly

tra c e a ble to de fe nda n t’ s c onduc t, a

nd tha t a favora ble de c ision would like l y re dre ss the a lle ge d injury . Lujan v . De

fe n de rs of W

ildlife , 504 U.S. 555, 560-61 (1992). Que stions of c onstitutiona

l sta nding a re re v ie we d de novo on a ppe a l. Hay e

s v . C o unty of San Die go , 736 F.3d 1223, 1228 (9th C ir. 2013). The C e nte r e sta

blishe d injury

in fa c t through de c la

ra tions of intent to c ontinuevisiting the

Ka iba b Nationa l Fore st a

nd the a lle gations tha

t the Fore st -2-Se rvic e ’ s ta c it pe rm ission for hunters to use le a d am m unition e n da

nge rs wildlife . The c om p la int a lso suffic ie ntly e sta blishe d c a usation by

drawing a c onne c tion be twe e n the Fore st Se rvic e ’ s re fusa l to e xe rc ise its a uthority to re gula te the use of le a d, the c ontinuing use

of le a d am

m unition by

hunte rs, a

n d the poisoning of c ondors a nd othe r wildlife tha

t sc ave nge re m a ins c onta

m inate d by

the le a d. Se e C ov ington v . J

e ffe rson C ounty , 358 F.3d 626, 639 (9th C ir. 2004) (“ If [the gove rnm e nt e ntity ] de c line d to ta ke any . . . re g ulatory a c tions, suc h ina c tion, whic h is c orre c ta

b le by c ourt orde r or sa

n c tion, m e e t s the c a

usation a nd re dre ssa b ility e le m e nts of sta

nding.” ). The fa c t

tha t hunte rs, not theFore st Se rvic e itse lf, a c tua lly

disposeof the le a d, doe s not m ake the c a usa l c o nne c t ion too atte nuate d be c a

use the Fore st Se rvic e ha s the a uthority to c ontrol c e rta in c onduc t of the third-pa

rty hunte rs. Fina lly , the orde r sought by the C e nte r is like ly

to re dre ss a t le a s t pa rtia lly the a lle ge d injurie s . The c om pla int a l le ge d tha

t spe nt le a d am m unition is the le a ding c a

use of c o ndors’ le a d e xposure , a nd thus c ondors (a

nd othe r, le s s-m igratory , wildlife ) would like ly be ne fit from a ge nc y a c tion to c urb the use of le a d am

m unition. W e c o nc lude tha t the c om pla int wa s a d e quate to e s ta blish Artic le III sta

nding. The distric t c ourt he ld tha t re dre ssa bility c ould not bee sta

blishe d, in la

rge pa rt be c a u se of the Supre m e C ourt’ s de c ision in N orton v . S. Utah W

ilde rne ss -3-Allianc e . N

orton he ld tha

t a suit brought unde

r se c tion 706(1) of the Adm inistra

tive Proc e dure Ac t to “ c om pe l a ge nc y a c tion unla

wfully withhe ld” c ould not proc e e d whe re the re wa s a n a bse nc e of a

“ disc re te a g e nc y

a c tion tha

t it is re quire d to ta

ke .” 542 U.S. 55, 64 (2004) (c iting 5 U.S.C . § 706(1)). Howe ve r, N orton a ddre sse d suits brought unde r 5 U.S.C . § 706(1) a

nd is ina pplic a ble to the c itiz e n-suit provision he

re , whic h provide s a

c a use of a c tion tha

t by its own term s is not lim ite d to c om

pe lling non-discre tiona

ry a c t ion unla

wfully withhe l d. R athe r, the c itiz e n-suit provision gra n ts c ourts thepowe r to “ re stra in a ny pe rson who ha s c ontribute d to” disposa l of a solid or ha

z a rdous wa ste that pre se nts a n im m ine nt and substa

ntia l da n ge r, and to “ orde r suc h pe rson to ta ke suc h othe r a c tion as may bene c e ssary .” 42 U.S.C . § 6972(a) (e m pha s is a dde d). At ora l a

rgum e nt, the gove rnm e nt c onc e de d

tha t a n ope n-e nde d orde r to the Fore st Se rvic e to a bate a c ontribution unde

r 42 U.S.C . § 6972(a)(1)(B ) would not im plic ate N orton . In c onne c t ion with its R

ule 12(b)(6) m o tion to dism iss, thegove rnm e nt argue d tha t the Fore st Se rvic e c ould not bea “ c ontributor”unde r 42 U.S.C . § 6972(a)(1)(B ) on the fa c ts a lle ge d . The distric t c ourt did not addre ss the Fore st Se rvic e ’ s m otion a nd we do not do so he

re . Nota bly , the gove rnm e nt did not ra ise the “ c ontributor”argum e nt in its brie fing on a p pe a l with re spe c t to the sta nding que stion, a

nd thus it is wa

ive d a s to tha

t issue . This wa ive r doe s not -4-a ffe c t the gove rnm e nt’ s a b ility to a ddre ss the m e rits of this a rgum e nt on re m and. At this stage , we sim

ply re solve tha

t the c l a im

is not “wholly

insubsta ntia l a nd frivolous,”suc h tha

t it de fe ats sta

nding. Ste e l C

o. v . C itize ns for a Be tte r

Env ’t , 523 U.S. 83, 89 (1998) (quoting Be ll v . Hood, 327 U.S. 678, 682-83 (1946) (inte rna l quota

t ion m a rks om itte d)). Whe the r the re is a

va lid c a use of a c tion suffic ie nt to survive the Fore s t Se rvic e ’ s m otion to dism

iss unde r R

u le 12(b)(6) is a

que stion le ft to the distric t c ourt on re m and. At this sta ge , howe ve r, the pla

usibility of the le ga l ba sis for the c la im doe s not fa c tor into the R ule 12(b)(1) m otion to dism i ss for la c k

of c onstitutiona

l sta nding, be c a

use the que s tion of whe the r the re is a va lid c la im unde r R C R

A is fa i rly

de bat a ble . RE V E RSE D AND RE M ANDE D .

-5-