N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
NEIGHB OR S AGAINST B ISON SLAUGHTER ; B ONNIE LYNN,

Pla i ntiffs-Appe lla

nts,
v. NATIONAL PAR

K SER VIC E; e t a l., De fe nda n ts-Appe lle e s. No. 22-35955 D.C . No. 1:19-c v-00128-SPW
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of M o nta

na Susa n P. W atte rs, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d and Subm i tte d Nove m

be r 15, 2023 San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : S.R . THOM A S and M ENDOZA, C irc uit Judge s, a n d OLIVER , * * Distric t Judge
. Pla intiffs-Appe l la

nts B onnie Ly

nn a nd Ne ighbors Aga inst B i son Sla ughte r (toge the r, “

Ne ighbors” ) a

ppe a l from

the distric t c ourt’ s orde r de ny i ng attorne y ’ s



# FIL ED DEC 6 2023 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F A PPEALS

* 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 Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.

* * The Honora

ble Solom on Olive r, Jr., Se nior Unite d State s Distric t Judge for the Northe rn Distric t of Ohio, sitting by de signa tion.fe e s . W e hav e jurisdic tion to re vie w orde rs de ny ing m otions for a ttorne y ’ s fe e s unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291, a n d we a ffirm the judgm e nt of the distric t c ourt. B e c a use the p artie s a

re fam ilia r with thefa c ts a

nd proc e dura l history , we ne e d not re c ount it he re . I

“ W e re vie w the distric t c ourt’ s de nia l of fe e s unde r [the Equa l Ac c e ss to Justic e Ac t (“ EAJA” )] for a buse of disc re t ion.” Me dina Tov ar v . Zuc how sk i , 41 F.4th 1085, 1089 (9th C ir. 2022). A distric t c o urt’ s finding a s to whe the r the gove rnm e nt’ s position is substa ntia lly justifie d is re v ie we d

for a buse of disc re tion. Pie rc e v . Unde r

w ood, 487 U.S. 552, 557–63 (1988). And the Supre m e C o urt ha s instruc te d tha

t the distric t c ourt’ s c onc lusion is entitle d to de fe re nc e on a

ppe a l. Id.
at 560.

“ Unde r EAJA, a

litiga nt is e n title d to a

ttorne y ’ s fe e s and c osts if: (1) heis the p re va iling pa

rty ; (2) the gove rnm e nt fa ils to show tha t its position was substa ntia lly justifie d or tha

t spe c ia l c irc um s ta

nc e s m ake an a

ward unjust; a

nd (3) the re que ste d fe e s a

n d c osts a re re a sona

ble .” C arbone ll v
. IN

S, 429 F.3d 894, 898 (9th C ir. 2005); se e also 28 U.S.C . § 2412(d)(1)(B ). B e c a u se we c onc lude that the distric t c o urt did not a

buse its disc re tion in c onc luding tha t the gove rnm e nt’ s position wa s substa

ntia lly justifie d, “ we ne e d not de c ide whe the r [Ne ighbors] wa s

2a

pre va iling pa

rty ” nor whe the r the ir re que s te d fe e s a re re a sona

ble
. Me za-Vazque

z v . Garland

, 993 F.3d 726, 731 (9th C i r. 2021). II The distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion in finding the gove rnm e nt’ s position substa

ntia lly justifie d. “ Substa

n tia lly justifie d” doe s not m e a

n “ j ustifie d to a high de gre e .” Pie rc e , 487 U.S. a t 565. R athe r, it m e ans “

justifie d in substa

nc e or in the m a in—

that is, justifie d

to a de gre e that c ould sa

tisfy a re a s ona ble pe rson.” Id. (c i tations omitte d ); se e also Flore s v . Shalala , 49 F.3d 562, 569 (9th C i r.1995) (“ In this c irc u it, we a

pply a re a sona

ble ne ss sta

n da rd in de t e rm ining whe the r the gove rnm e nt’ s position wa s substa ntia lly justifie d for purpose s of the EAJA.” ). In a sse ssing re a sona

ble ne ss, a c ourt c an c onside r its own view of the “ a c tua l
m e rits,” pre vious de c isions in the c a se , a n d the vie ws of othe r c ourts to de te rm ine if the gove rnm e n t ’ s position ha s “ re a sona ble ba sis both in la

w a nd fa c t.” Id. at 568–71. First, the

distric t c ourt re lie d on its pre vious de c isions, noting tha t it ha d

“ ne ithe r found nor did the Gove rnm e nt a dm it to a

viola tion of c le arly

e sta blishe d la w tha t it ne e de d to re m e d

y on re m and.” Although the distric t c ourt did not
re solve the m e rits of Pla intiffs’ c la im s, Pla intiffs did not pre va il on the ir m otions for a t e m pora ry re stra ining orde r and for a pre lim ina

ry injunc tion. And although Pla i ntiffs supporte d re m a nd, the y re que ste d

va c atur of the a ge nc y

de c ision, whic h
3the d istric t c o urt de c line d. In issuing the orde r to re m and without vac atur, the distric t c o urt wa s re quire d to a sse ss “ how se rious the a g e nc y 's e rrors [we re ] .” C alifornia C

ommunitie

s Against Tox ics v . US EPA , 688 F.3d 989, 992 (9th C ir. 2012). Se c ond, the c o urt a na ly z e d de c isions in five

othe r c a se s upholding the gove rnm e nt’ s m a

na ge m e nt of the Ye llowstonebison he rd. In so doing, the distric t
c ourt prope rly c o nside re d the gove rnm e nt’ s “ s tring of suc c e s se s” de fe nding its bison m an a ge m e nt pra c tic e s. Pie rc e , 486 U.S. a t 569. That the Park Se rvic e m ove d to volunta rily re m and this c a se doe s not a lte r the a na ly sis. W

he n the gove rnm e nt re que sts a volunta ry re m and, the c ourt should
a sse ss the “ like ly

re a son be hind thevolunta ry re m and in que stion” to de te rm ine whe the r the gove rnm e n t wa s substa ntia lly justifie d. Li , 505 F.3d a

t 919. If the
a ge nc y se e k s a

re m and to re e va luate its prior a c tions “ due to a m isa pplic at ion of, or fa i lure to a

pply , c ontrolling la

w,” the n the a ge nc y ’ s de c ision would not be substa ntia lly justifie d. Id. B e c a

use the distric t c ourt found no le ga l e rror to be
re m e die d, a

nd be c a u s e the distric t c ourt found tha t the gove rnm e nt did not adm it to
a viola tion of c le arly e s ta

blishe d la w, it did not e

rr in finding the

gove rnm e nt’ s position substa

ntia lly justifie d. Id. W e a l so note tha t Pla intiffs a

ppe a le d the
re m and orde r be c a

use it did not im

pose a de a d line for c om

ple t ion of the
e nvironm e nta l im

pa c t sta te m e nt, but wea ffirm e d

the distric t c ourt’ s re m an d orde r. 4N

e ighbors Against Bison Slaughte r v . N ational Park

Se rv i c e , 2022 W L 1315302,
at *1 (9th C ir. 2022)
. Having c onc lude d tha

t the distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion in
c onc luding tha

t the gove rnm e nt’ s position wa s substa ntia lly justifie d, we ne e d not— a nd do not—de c ide whe the r Pla intiffs we re pre va i ling pa rtie s, nor do we
re solve any

othe r issue urge d by

the pa rtie s . AFFIRM E D.

5