Opinion ID: 6982227
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: jurisdiction

Text: After an initial review, we ordered the parties to brief the issue whether the district court order is immediately appealable to this court. We now conclude that it is. “[T]he courts of appeals shall have jurisdiction of appeals from ... [ijnterlocutory orders of the district courts of the United States ... or of the judges thereof, granting, continuing, modifying, refusing or dissolving injunctions28 U.S.C. § 1292(a) (emphasis added). The Tenth Circuit has recognized “two strands of analysis” for § 1292(a)(1) appeals under which we have jurisdiction. See Utah State Dept. of Health v. Kennecott Corp., 14 F.3d 1489, 1496 (10th Cir.1994). ' The first strand applies to orders regarding “express motions for injunctive relief’ and the second applies to orders with the “practical effect” of disposing of a request for injunctive relief. See id. We believe the district court order is appealable under either analysis. When plaintiffs’ motion is read in conjunction with their complaint, it is clear that plaintiffs were seeking injunctive relief. First, in their complaint, plaintiffs expressly requested an “injunction” ordering the Secretary to “issue a final rule on designation of critical habitat for the minnow within 30 days of this Court’s order.” Likewise, although plaintiffs’ motion before the district court was captioned “Motion for Review of Agency Decision,” it too sought injunctive relief. The plaintiffs expressly requested that the district court “declare that the defendant violated his non-diseretionary duty” and that the district court “order [the Secretary] to carry out [his duty to designate the critical habitat for the Rio Grande silvery minnow] within 30 days of the Court’s order.” In short, plaintiffs have sought injunctive relief. Even though plaintiffs failed to label their motion in the district court as one for injunction, it is clear from the content of the motion that plaintiffs were seeking injunctive relief. 11 The district court’s order denying that motion was an “interlocutory order expressly denying ... an injunction [and] it fits squarely within the plain language of § 1292(a)(1)....” Kennecott Corp., 14 F.3d at 1496. Alternatively, we have jurisdiction because the district court’s order had the “practical effect” of refusing plaintiffs’ injunction. In order to have appellate jurisdiction under this second strand of analysis, the challenged order must: (1) have “the practical effect of refusing an injunction,” (2) threaten a “‘serious, perhaps irreparable, consequence,’ ” and (3) be “ ‘effectually challenged’ ” only by immediate appeal. Carson v. American Brands, Inc., 450 U.S. 79, 84, 101 S.Ct. 993, 67 L.Ed.2d 59 (1981) (citation omitted). Here, the practical effect of the district court’s order was to deny the injunctive relief sought by plaintiffs. Had plaintiffs’ motion been granted, an injunction would have issued. See Oregon Natural Resources Council, Inc. v. Kantor, 99 F.3d 334, 337 (9th Cir.1996) (holding that denial of motion for summary judgment was sufficient to establish first prong of Carson where it effectively denies or obviates the need for injunctive relief). The environmental organizations sought to compel the Secretary to comply with his statutorily-imposed duty within 30 days of a court order. The district court’s denial of plaintiffs’ motion and the accompanying grant of the Secretary’s motion to stay proceedings until October 30, 1999 had the effect of denying plaintiffs’ request for an order enjoining the Secretary to comply presently- In addition, the consequences of denying plaintiffs’ motion and staying proceedings for over 14 months threatens serious, perhaps irreparable, consequences regarding the continued vitality of the silvery minnow. Despite the Secretary’s argument to the contrary, critical habitat designations serve to protect species vulnerable to extinction. Without a designated critical habitat, the ESA’s requirement that “[e]ach Federal agency shall ... insure that any [of its actions] is not likely to ... result in the destruction or adverse modification of [critical] habitat,” 16 U.S.C. § 1536(a)(2), becomes unenforceable. Congress expressed its opinion regarding the importance of critical habitat designations by requiring, with limited exception, a contemporaneous designation of critical habitat at the time of listing a species as either endangered or threatened. See 16 U.S.C. § 1533(b)(6)(C). Delaying a decision on the Secretary’s duties regarding designation of critical habitat-a designation already 3~ years overdue-for over a year more could result in continued and potentially irreparable loss of the silvery minnow. Finally, immediate review in this court is necessary to challenge effectually the Secretary’s inaction. Plaintiffs have no other recourse. Without review in this court, the action will be stayed until October 30,1999. Accordingly, we have jurisdiction to reach the merits of plaintiffs’ appeal.