Source: https://www.animallaw.info/case/coos-county-bd-county-comrs-v-norton
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 11:49:51+00:00

Document:
MICHAEL R. HOGAN, District Judge.
*1 Alleging violations of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), plaintiffs seek to compel defendants to publish in the Federal Register proposed and final rules to remove the Washington, Oregon and California population of the marbled murrelet (the murrelet) from the list of threatened species. See 16 U.S.C. § 1533(c)(1). Defendants filed a motion to dismiss under Rules 12(b)(1) or 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The court lacks jurisdiction over plaintiffs' claims. In the alternative, the complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Defendants' motion is therefore granted.
Plaintiffs allege that after defendants completed a five year review of the murrelet, [FN1] defendants violated the ESA and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) by failing to publish proposed and final rules "delisting" the murrelet. [FN2] Defendants argue that the court lacks jurisdiction over plaintiffs' claims and plaintiffs fail to state a claim because the complaint does not allege the failure to perform an act or duty required by 16 U.S.C. § 1533.
FN1. The Fish and Wildlife Service found that the Washington, Oregon and California marbled murrelet population does not satisfy the criteria for designation as a distinct population segment (DPS) under the Service's 1996 DPS policy. Complaint, ex. 1, attachment A at 28. The Service determined not to change the threatened status of the species pending the completion of a range-wide status review. Id.
Under subsection (b)(3) of section 1533 upon which plaintiffs rely, the Secretary need publish a proposed regulation only after receiving a petition to add or remove species from the lists of threatened and endangered species and making certain findings. 16 U .S.C. § 1533(b)(3). The complaint does not allege that plaintiffs submitted a petition to remove the murrelet from the list of threatened species. Plaintiffs do not dispute defendants' contention that plaintiffs did not file such a petition. Plaintiffs instead contend that the five-year review process of subsection (c)(2) substitutes for the petition process of subsection (b)(3). Pls' Memo. at 8. Plaintiffs' interpretation finds no support in the plain language of either subsection.
Plaintiffs make a structural argument that the subsection (c)(2) species review process must substitute for the subsection (b)(3)(A) petition process, else the Secretary might be required to needlessly duplicate effort when a petition is filed after completion of species review under subsection (c)(2). [FN3] This argument contemplates a scenario not before the court and in any event is not strong enough to overcome the plain language of the statute. The Secretary need complete the status review contemplated by subsection (b)(3)(A) only if he first finds that the petition presents substantial information indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted. 16 U.S.C. § 1533(b)(3)(A). If the petition presents information considered in the subsection (c)(2) species review, little extra effort may be required to complete a subsection (b)(3)(A) status review. If the petition presents new information, extra effort is properly expended on the subsection (b)(3)(A) status review. The court rejects plaintiff's argument that in the absence of a petition, the Secretary must take actions mandated by subsection (b)(3) after completing the species review and determinations required by subsection (c)(2).
FN3. See 16 U.S.C. § 1533(b)(3)(A) (providing that if the Secretary finds that a petition presents substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that action may be warranted, the Secretary shall commence a review of the status of the species concerned).
*2 Because plaintiffs have not alleged or demonstrated that they filed a petition, they cannot establish that the Secretary has a duty under Section 1533(b)(3)(B)(ii) to publish a proposed regulation in accordance with paragraph (5). It follows that there can be no duty to publish a final regulation. 16 U.S.C. § 1533(b)(6)(A). Because the complaint identifies no duty or act required by Section 1533, the court lacks jurisdiction under the ESA and APA. 16 U.S.C. § 1540(g); Califano v. Sanders, 430 U.S. 99, 107 (1977). In the alternative, plaintiffs' failure to allege required action is fatal to their claims for violation of 16 U.S.C. 1533(b)(3) and (c)(2) and 5 U.S.C. § 706(1).
Based on the foregoing, defendant's motion to dismiss [# 6] is granted. This action is dismissed.

References: § 1533
 § 1533
 § 1533
 § 1533
 § 1533
 § 1533
 § 1540
 v. 
 § 706