Diversity v. Fish and Wildlife Services of the United States
Center For Biological Diversity v. Fish and Wildlife Services of the United States
- William Alsup
- 3:16-cv-06040
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Center for Biological Diversity v. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, Judge Alsup denied a 30-day extension for the Service’s Pacific fisher listing deadline.
The Center for Biological Diversity, the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, and members of the public who might comment on the proposed listing rule were affected by the denial of the requested extension.
What happened
Center for Biological Diversity v. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service concerned deadlines for the government’s proposed and final decisions about whether to list the Pacific fisher under the Endangered Species Act.
The parties jointly asked for 30 more days to publish the final listing decision because a member of the public had requested a 90-day extension of the notice-and-comment period. The deadlines had already been extended twice, and the existing order provided a 45-day period for public comments.
Judge William Alsup denied the stipulated extension. He ruled that the 45-day comment period was enough for a diligent member of the public to comment, given the delay and prior extensions.
The detailed version
- Diversity v. Fish and Wildlife Services of the United States · No. 3:16-cv-06040
- William Alsup
- Dec. 3, 2019
Background
The plaintiffs brought an action seeking declaratory and injunctive relief under the Endangered Species Act concerning the status of the Pacific fisher. In an order dated May 17, 2019, the court set deadlines for the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (the Service) to submit a revised proposed listing for publication in the Federal Register by October 26, 2019, and to submit a final listing determination by April 25, 2020.
The parties stipulated to, and jointly requested, a 30-day extension of the deadline for publishing the final listing determination. They cited a member of the public’s request for a 90-day extension of the notice-and-comment period. The court noted that the deadlines had already been extended twice.
Legal standard
The court considered Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(5), which permits relief from a final judgment when applying it prospectively is no longer equitable. The court stated that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit had adopted a flexible standard for requests to modify judgments under this provision. Under that standard, the moving party must show a significant change in circumstances that warrants revising the judgment, and any modification must be suitably tailored to that changed circumstance.
Ruling and reasoning
The court recognized that meaningful notice and comment are important to careful agency rulemaking. It nevertheless concluded that the final rule had already been long delayed and that the deadlines had been extended twice. The May 17 order already provided the public with a 45-day notice-and-comment period, which the court found sufficient for a diligent member of the public to comment.
Judge William Alsup therefore denied the parties’ stipulated request for a 30-day extension. The opinion did not decide the underlying question of the Pacific fisher’s listing status.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.