FI LED U. S . COURT OF AP PE ALS E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT June 28, 2006 T HOM AS K. KAHN CL E RK [ P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 05- 15851

________________________ D . C . D ocketN o. 04 -025 73 -C V -J T C -1 C E N T E R F O R B I O L O G I C A L D I V E R S I T Y , S I E R R A C L U B , S O U T H E RN A P P A L A C H I A N B I O D I V E R S I T Y P R O J E C T , G E O R G I A F O R E S T W A T C H , P la in tif f s - A p p e lla n ts , v ersu s S A M H A M I L T O N , R e g io n a l D ir e c to r , R e g io n 4 , U n ite d S ta te s F is h a n d W ild lif e S e rv ic e , S T E V E N W I L L I A M S , D ir e c to r , U n ite d S ta te s F is h a n d W ild lif e S e rv ic e , D I R K K E M P T H O RN E , S e c r e ta ry o f

th e I n te r io r , D e p a r tm e n t o f I n te r io r , D e f e n d a n ts - A p p e lle e s .

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e N o r th e rn D is tr ic t o f G e o r g ia

_________________________ ( Ju n e 28, 2006)Honora ble Anne C. Conway, United States District Judg e for the Middle District of * Florida , sitti ngby

designation. 2 B ef ore B L A C K and P R Y O R , C i rc ui tJudg es , and C O N W A Y , D i stri ctJudg e. * P E R C U R I A M: T he C ent erfor B i ol og i ca l D i vers i ty app ea l s the di sm i ss al of i t s c om pl ai ntas u n tim e lyu n d e rth e s ix - y e a rs ta tu te o f lim ita tio n s f

o rs u its a g a in s t th e U n ite d S ta te s . S e e 28 U . S . C . § 2401( a ) . T hi s appe a l r a i s e s a n i s s ue of f i r s ti m pr e s s i on f

orthe C our t s of A ppe a l s : w he the rthe f a i l ur e of the S e c r e t a ry of

the D e pa r tm e ntof

the Int er i or t o p er form the no nd i sc re t i on ary duty t o d es i gn at e acr i t i ca l habi t atfor a threa t ened speci es i s acont i nu i ng vi ol at i on thatperm i t s apl ai nt i ff t o fi l e s ui tm ore th a n s i x y e a r s a f

t e rth e d e a d l i n e t o p e r f

o rm th a td u ty h a s p a s s e d . B e c a u s e we c o n c l u d e th a tth e c o n t i n u i n g v i o l a t i o n d o c tr i n e d o e s n o tap p l y , w e a f f i rm. I . B AC KG RO UN D O n A pr i l 19, 1991, the S e c r e t a ry i s s ue d apr opos e d rul e t o l i s ttw o s pe c i e s of m in n o w s , th e B lu e S h in e ra n d th e G o ld lin e D a r te r , a s th r e a te n e d s p e c ie s . P ropo se d T hrea t ened S t atus for the F i sh the G ol dl i ne D art er(P er ci na aurol i neat a) a n d B l u e S h i n e r( C y p r i n e l l ac a e ru l e a ) , 5 6 F e d . R e g . 1 6 , 0 5 4 ( Ap r i l 1 9 , 1 9 9 1 ) . On A pr i l 22, 1992, the f

i na l rul e w a s pr om ul ga t e d. T hr e a t e ne d S t a tus f orT w o F i s h, 57 F e d. R e g. 14, 786 ( A pr . 22, 1992) . I n the f i na l rul e , the S e c r e t a ry s t a t e d tha tthe desi gn at i on of a c ri t i ca l habi t at

— the ar eai n w hi ch the threa t ened or endang er ed3

spec i es i s f

ou nd and t o w hi ch the E nd angered S peci es A ctaf fords a dd i t i on al pr ot e c t i ons — “ m a y be prude ntbut[ ] i ti s notnow de t e rm i nabl e . ” I d. A l though the rul e s ai d, “ In the com i ng m on ths, a propo se d rul e f or the desi gn at i on of cr i t i ca l habi t atw i l l be pu bl i shed, ” i d. , the S ec re t ary neverprop osed such a rul e; t o d at e, the S e c r e t a ry ha s notde s i gna t e d ac r i t i c a l habi t a tf orthe thr e a t e ne d f

i s h. O n S ept em ber 2, 20 04 , the C ent erfi l ed a c om pl ai nti n federa l di stri ctcourt thatal l eged thatthe S ec re t ary vi ol at ed i t s non di sc re t i on ary duty t o d es i gn at e a c r itic a l h ab ita t f

o rth e B lu e S h in e ra n d G o ld lin e D a r te r . S e e 1 6 U .S .C . § 1533( b) ( 6) ( A ) , ( b) ( 6) ( C ) ( i i ) ( r e qui r i ng the S e c r e t a ry t o publ i s h af i na l r e gul a t i on thatdesi gn at es the cr i t i ca l habi t atw i thi n tw o yea rs of the prop osed re gu l at i on that lis te d th e s p e c ie s a s e n d a n g e r e d o rth r e a te n e d ) ; id . § 1 5 4 0 ( g ) ( 1 ) ( C ) ( c itiz e n s u it prov i si on ). T he S ec re t ary c on ce ded the fa i l ure t o com pl y w i th the du ty und er s e c tio n 1 5 3 3 , b u t a r g u e d th a t th e c o m p la in t w a s u n tim e ly u n d e rth e s ix - y e a rs ta tu te o f lim ita tio n s th a t g o v e rn s s u its a g a in s t th e U n ite d S ta te s . S e e 2 8 U .S .C . § 2401( a ) . T he C e nt e ra r gue d tha ti tc om pl i e d w i th the s i x- y e a rs t a tut e of l i m i t a t i ons because the fa i l ure t o d es i gn at e acr i t i ca l habi t atw as a “ cont i nu i ng vi ol at i on . ” S ee S . A ppa l a c hi a n B i odi ve r s i ty P r oj e c tv. U . S . F i s h & W i l dl i f e S e rvs . , 181 F . S upp. 2d 88 3, 88 7 (E . D . T enn. 20 01 ). T he di stri ctcourtfoun d thatthe E nd angered4

S peci es A ct“ do es no ti m po se a c on t i nu i ng du ty on D ef endant s t o d es i gn at e a cri t i cal h ab i t at ” an d d i sm i ssed th e co m p l ai n tas u n t i m el y. I I . STA N D A R D O F R EVI EW

“ W e r e vi e w the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s i nt e rpr e t a t i on a nd appl i c a t i on of s t a tut e s of l i m i t a t i ons de novo. ” T e l l o v. D e a n W i tt e rR e y nol ds , I nc . , 410 F . 3d 1275, 1278 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) ( q u o tin g U n ite d S ta te s v . C la rk e , 3 1 2 F .3 d 1 3 4 3 , 1 3 4 5 n .1 ( 1 1 th C i r. 20 02 )) . I I I . DI S CUS S I ON T he s ol e i s s ue be f

or e thi s C our ti s w he the rthi s s ui tw a s unt i m e l y on the grou nd thatthe fa i l ure of the S ec re t ary t o d es i gn at e acr i t i ca l habi t atfor a thr e a t e ne d s pe c i e s i s a“ c ont i nui ng vi ol a t i on. ” T he c ont i nui ng vi ol a t i on doc tr i ne perm i t s apl ai nt i ff

t o sue on an otherw i se t i m e- barr ed cl ai m w hen add i t i on al v io lati o n s o f th e law o cc u r w ith in th e s tatu to ry p er io d . S ee H ip p v . L ib er ty N at’l L i f e I ns . C o. , 252 F . 3d 1208, 1221 ( 11th C i r . 2001) . T o de t e rm i ne w he the rthe c ont i nui ng vi ol a t i on doc tr i ne appl i e s , w e m us tc ons i de rthe t e xtof the r e l e va nt st atut e, w hi ch i s the E nd angered S peci es A ct . S ee N at i onal R . R . Pas s engerC orp. v. M or gan, 536 U . S. 101, 108- 09, 122 S. C t . 2061, 2069–70 ( 2002) . W e f i r s tc ons i de rthe pr ovi s i ons tha tgove rn the dut i e s of the S e c r e t a ry . T he A ctprov i des, “ W i thi n the on e- ye arperi od begi nn i ng on the dat e on w hi ch general5

n o t i ce i s p u b l i sh ed . . . reg ard i n g a p ro p o sed reg u l at i o n , th e S ecret ary sh al l p u b l i sh i n the F e de r a l R e gi s t e r. . . af i na l r e gul a t i on t o i m pl e m e nt ” i t s de t e rm i na t i on w he the ras pe c i e s i s thr e a t e ne d. 16 U . S . C . § 1533( b) ( 6) ( A ) . “ A f i na l r e gul a t i on d e s ig n a tin g c r itic a l h ab ita t o f a n e n d a n g e r e ds p e c ie s o rath r e a te n e d s p e c ie s s h a ll be publ i s he d c onc urr e nt l y w i th the f i na l r e gul a t i on i m pl e m e nt i ng the de t e rm i na t i on tha ts uc h s pe c i e s i s e nda nge r e d orthr e a t e ne d[ . ] ” I d. § 1533( b) ( 6) ( C ) . I f the S ec re t ary de em s th at . . . [the] cr i t i ca l habi t atof such spec i es i s notthen de t e rm i nabl e , [ the S e c r e t a ry ] m ay ex t e nd the one - y e a rpe r i od . . . by no tm ore than o ne addi t i on al ye ar , bu tno tl at erthan the cl os e o f such a ddi t i ona l y e a rthe S e c r e t a ry m us tpubl i s h af i na l r e g u l at i o n , ba s e d on s uc h da t aa s m a y be a va i l abl e a ttha tt i m e , de s i gna t i n g , t o the m a x im u m e x te n t p ru d e n t, s u c h h ab ita t. Id. § 1 53 3(b)(6)(C)(i i ) ( em ph as i s a dd ed). W e n e x t c o n s id e rth e s ta tu te s th a t p e r ta in to c iv il a c tio n s to e n f o r c e th e A c t. T he A c tpe rm i t s “ a ny pe r s on [ t o] c om m e nc e ac i vi l s ui t. . . w he r e the r e i s a l l e ge d a f a ilu r e o f th e S e c r e ta ry to p e r f

o rm a n y a c t o rd u ty u n d e r[ s e c tio n 1 5 3 3 ] w h ic h is notdi s c r e t i ona ry w i th the S e c r e t a ry . ” I d. § 1540( g) ( 1) ( C ) . T he A c tpr e s c r i be s no st atu t e o f l i m i t at i o n s, so th e g en eral si x -year st atu t e o f l i m i t at i o n s fo r su i t s ag ai n st the U ni t e d S t a t e s appl i e s . S e e 28 U . S . C . § 2401( a ) ; E dw a r ds v. S ha l a l a , 64 F . 3d 6 0 1 , 6 0 5 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 9 5 ) ( f in d in g th a t s e c tio n 2 4 0 1 ( a ) “s e ts a n o u ts id e tim e lim it on s ui t s a ga i ns tthe U ni t e d S t a t e s ” ) . “ U nl i ke a n or di na ry s t a tut e of l i m i t a t i ons , §6

2401( a ) i s aj ur i s di c t i ona l c ondi t i on a tt a c he d t o the gove rnm e nt ’ s w a i ve rof s ove r e i gn i m m uni ty , a nd a s s uc h m us tbe s tr i c t l y c ons true d. ” S pa nna us v. D e p’ tof Just i ce , 82 4 F . 2d 52 , 55 (D . C . C i r. 19 87 ). B ec ause the S ec re t ary s t at ed i n the A pri l 22 , 19 92 , rul e thatthe cr i t i ca l h ab ita t f o rth e B lu e S h in e ra n d G o ld lin e D a r te rw a s “n o t d e te rm in ab le ,” T h r e a te n e d S ta tu s f

o rT w o F is h , 5 7 F e d . R e g . 1 4 ,7 8 6 , th e S e c r e ta ry w a s r e q u ir e d to i s s ue af i na l rul e de s i gna t i ng the c r i t i c a l habi t a ttw o y e a r s a f t e ri s s ua nc e of

the pr opos e d rul e on A pr i l 19, 1991. T he pa r t i e s a gr e e tha tthe C e nt e rc oul d ha ve br oughts ui tba s e d on the f a i l ur e of the S e c r e t a ry t o c om pl y w i th thi s de a dl i ne be gi nni ng A pr i l 20, 1993. T he C e nt e ra r gue s tha tA pr i l 20, 1993, i s m e r e l y the f i r s tvi ol a t i on of

s e c t i on 1533; the C e nt e rc ont e nds tha t , unde rthe c ont i nui ng vi ol a t i on doc tr i ne , the pa s s a ge of e a c h da y c r e a t e s a n a ddi t i ona l c a us e of a c t i on, w hi ch tri gg er s a new the runn i ng of the si x-ye arl i m i t at i on s per i od . W e di sa gree . No th i n g i n th e l a n g u a g e o f th e Ac ts u p p o r t s th e p o s i t i o n o f th e Ce n t e r . To the contra ry , the A ctcoun se l s i n favor of a si ng l e vi ol at i on thatac crues on the day f o llo w in g th e d e a d lin e . S e e T o u s s ie v . U n ite d S ta te s , 3 9 7 U .S . 1 1 2 , 1 2 0 , 9 0 S . C t. 858, 863 ( 1970) , s upe r s e de d by s t a tut e , 50 U . S . C . app. § 462( d) . T he l a ngua ge

“ notl a t e rtha n” c r e a t e s nota n ongoi ng duty butaf i xe d poi nti n t i m e a tw hi c h the vi ol a t i on f

orthe f a i l ur e of the S e c r e t a ry t o a c ta r i s e s . T he r e qui r e m e ntof s e c t i on7

1533 tha tthe S e c r e t a ry r e l y on “ s uc h da t aa s m a y be a va i l abl e a tthe t i m e , ” 16 U . S . C . § 1533( b) ( 6) ( C ) ( i i ) ( e m pha s i s a dde d) , pr ovi de s a ddi t i ona l s uppor tf orthe pos i t i on of

the S e c r e t a ry . I f

the duty w e r e ongoi ng, i tw oul d be a nom a l ous f or C ongr e s s t o r e qui r e the S e c r e t a ry t o i gnor e ne w i nf orm a t i on w he n pr om ul ga t i ng the rul e. T hi s i nt e rpr e t a t i on i s c ons i s t e ntw i th ourpr e c e de nt s tha tha ve a ddr e s s e d the sc op e of the cont i nu i ng vi ol at i on do ctri ne. F i rs t , thi s C ou rthas di st i ng ui shed b e tw e e n th e c o n tin u in g e f f e c ts o f ad is c r e te v io la tio n a n d c o n tin u in g v io la tio n s :

“ In d et erm i n i n g w h eth er a d i scri m i n at o ry em p l o ym en tp ract i ce co n st i tu t es a c ont i nui ng vi ol a t i on, thi s C i r c ui tdi s t i ngui s he s be tw e e n the pr e s e ntc ons e que nc e of aone t i m e vi ol a t i on, w hi c h doe s note xt e nd the l i m i t a t i ons pe r i od, a nd the c ont i nua t i on of

tha tvi ol a t i on i nt o the pr e s e nt , w hi c h doe s . ” C i ty of H i a l e a h v. R o ja s , 3 1 1 F .3 d 1 0 9 6 , 1 1 0 1 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 2 ) ( q u o ta tio n s o m itte d ) ; s e e a ls o L o v e tt v. R a y , 327 F . 3d 1181, 1183 ( 11th C i r . 2003) . T he C e nt e rc om pl a i ns of the c ont i nui ng e f

f e c t s of the f a i l ur e of the S e c r e t a ry t o de t e rm i ne the c r i t i c a l habi t a tby th e s ta tu to ry d e a d lin e , ao n e - tim e v io la tio n u n d e rth e A c t. S e c ond, w e ha ve l i m i t e d the appl i c a t i on of the c ont i nui ng vi ol a t i on doc tr i ne to s itu a tio n s in w h ic h ar e a s o n ab ly p ru d e n t p la in tif f w o u ld h a v e b e e n u n ab le to d e te rm in e th a t av io la tio n h a d o c c u rr e d . “I f a n e v e n t o rs e r ie s o f

e v e n ts s h o u ld8

ha ve a l e r t e d ar e a s onabl e pe r s on t o a c tt o a s s e r thi s orhe rr i ght s a tthe t i m e of the vi ol at i on , the vi ct i m ca nn otl at erre l y on the cont i nu i ng vi ol at i on do ctri ne[. ] ” H i pp, 252 F . 3d a t1222 ( quot i ng M a r t i n v. N a nni e & the N e w borns , I nc . , 3 F . 3d 1 4 1 0 , 1 4 1 5 n .6 ( 1 0 th C ir . 1 9 9 3 ) ) . B e c a u s e ar e a s o n ab ly p ru d e n t p la in tif f w o u ld ha ve be e n a w a r e of

the f a i l ur e of the S e c r e t a ry t o a c ton the da y f ol l ow i ng the d ead l i n e, th e co n t i n u i n g v i o l at i o n d o ctri n e d o es n o tap p l y. O u r co n cl u si o n th atth e co n t i n u i n g v i o l at i o n d o ctri n e d o es n o tap p l y i s al so consi st entw i th o ur st atut e of l i m i t at i on s a nd sovere i gn i m m un i ty j uri sprudence.

“ T he U ni t e d S t a t e s , a s s ove r e i gn, i s i m m une f r om s ui ts a ve a s i tc ons e nt s t o be s u e d .” U n ite d S ta te s v . S h e rw o o d , 3 1 2 U .S . 5 8 4 , 5 8 6 , 6 1 S . C t. 7 6 7 , 7 6 9 ( 1 9 4 1 ) .

“ W he n the U ni t e d S t a t e s c ons e nt s t o be s ue d, the t e rm s of i t s w a i ve rof

s ove r e i gn i m m uni ty de f

i ne the e xt e ntof

the c our t ’ s j ur i s di c t i on. ” S e e U ni t e d S t a t e s v. M ott a z , 476 U . S . 834, 841, 106 S . C t . 2224, 2229 ( 1986) . “ [ T ] he t e rm s ‘ upon w hi c h the G ove rnm e ntc ons e nt s t o be s ue d m us tbe s tr i c t l y obs e rve d a nd e xc e pt i ons the r e t o a r e nott o be i m pl i e d. ’ ” M c M a s t e rv. U ni t e d S t a t e s , 177 F . 3d 936, 939 ( 11th C i r . 1999) ( quot i ng S or i a no v. U ni t e d S t a t e s , 352 U . S . 270, 276, 77 S . C t. 2 6 9 , 2 7 3 ( 1 9 5 7 ) ) . O u rp r e d e c e s s o rc o u r t s im ila r ly o b s e rv e d th a t c o u r ts “w ill not , a s age ne r a l rul e , r e a d i nt o s t a tut e s of l i m i t a t i on a n e xc e pt i on w hi c h ha s not been em bo di ed there i n. ” S i m on v. U ni t ed S t at es , 24 4 F . 2d 70 3, 70 5 (5th C i r.9

1957) ( quot a t i on om i tt e d) . B e c a us e s e c t i on 2401 una m bi guous l y i m pos e s as i xy e a rs t a tut e of

l i m i t a t i ons , ourr e f

us a l t o e xt e nd the appl i c a t i on of the c ont i nui ng d o ctri n e co m p o rt s w i th p ri n ci p l es o f so v erei g n i m m u n i ty. W e r e c ogni z e tha ta tl e a s tone di s tr i c tc our tha s appl i e d the c ont i nui ng v i o l a t i o n d o c tr i n e t o s e c t i o n 1 5 3 3 . Se e S. A p p a l a c h i a n Bi o d i v e r s i ty Pr o j e c t , 1 8 1 F. S upp. 2d a t887. W e di s a gr e e w i th the r e a s oni ng of tha tde c i s i on. T he c onc l us i on of the S ou thern A pp al ac hi an courtthatthe “ [S ec re t ary] ’ s non -a ct i on l og i ca l l y c an o n ly b e c o n s tru e d a s ac o n tin u in g v io la tio n o f 1 6 U .S .C . § 1 5 3 3 ( b ) ( 6 ) ( C ) ,” id ., c ontr a di c t s ourC i r c ui tpr e c e de nt , w hi c h na rr ow l y l i m i t s the s c ope of the cont i nu i ng vi ol at i on do ctri ne. F in a lly , w e n o te th a t o u rd e c is io n d o e s n o t f o r e c lo s e a ll r e lie f

f o rth e C e n te r . T h e C e n te rm a y p e titio n th e S e c r e ta ry “to d e s ig n a te c r itic a l h ab ita t o rto a d o p t a s p e c ia l ru le to p r o v id e f o rth e c o n s e rv a tio n o f

as p e c ie s .” 5 0 C .F .R . § 4 2 4 .1 4 ( d ) . A l though the l a c k of

a n a l t e rna t i ve r e m e dy w oul d notc a us e us t o r e a d a n e xc e pt i on t o the l i m i t a t i ons pe r i od i nt o the A c t , the e xi s t e nc e of a n a l t e rna t i ve r e m e dy s uppor t s ourc onc l us i on tha tC ongr e s s di d noti nt e nd the c ont i nui ng vi ol a t i on d o ctri n e t o ap p l y. I V . CONCL US I ON T h e d is m is s a l o f

th e c o m p la in t is A FFI R M ED .