Center for Biological Diversity v. U.S. Forest Service, CV-20-00020-TUC-DCB. (2020)
Court: District Court, D. Arizona
Number: infdco20200313a43
Visitors: 6
Filed: Mar. 11, 2020
Latest Update: Mar. 11, 2020
Summary: ORDER DAVID C. BURY , District Judge . Plaintiff filed this action on January 13, 2020, alleging that the Defendants, the United States Forest Service and Fish and Wildlife Service, have violated the Endangered Species Act (ESA) by failing to reinitiate section 7 consultation for actions authorizing livestock grazing on allotments in national forest lands within Greenlee County. On February 12, 2020, Daniel Gabino Martinez, acting pro se, filed a Third Party Complaint [to Intervene] and Mot
Summary: ORDER DAVID C. BURY , District Judge . Plaintiff filed this action on January 13, 2020, alleging that the Defendants, the United States Forest Service and Fish and Wildlife Service, have violated the Endangered Species Act (ESA) by failing to reinitiate section 7 consultation for actions authorizing livestock grazing on allotments in national forest lands within Greenlee County. On February 12, 2020, Daniel Gabino Martinez, acting pro se, filed a Third Party Complaint [to Intervene] and Moti..
More
ORDER
DAVID C. BURY, District Judge.
Plaintiff filed this action on January 13, 2020, alleging that the Defendants, the United States Forest Service and Fish and Wildlife Service, have violated the Endangered Species Act (ESA) by failing to reinitiate section 7 consultation for actions authorizing livestock grazing on allotments in national forest lands within Greenlee County. On February 12, 2020, Daniel Gabino Martinez, acting pro se, filed a Third Party Complaint [to Intervene] and Motion to Dismiss. (Doc. 8.) He alleges that he owns property in Greenlee County. On February 26, 2020, the Plaintiff filed a Response which articulately explains why Mr. Martinez is neither entitled to intervene as a right nor permissively. (Response (Doc. 9)).
The Court will not restate the law. Martinez' only discernable interest in the action is his ownership of some unspecified land in Greenlee county. He does not allege to be a permittee on any allotments at issue. Any generalized interest in avoiding potentially stricter grazing permit limitations is too remote from the substance of the litigation to merit intervention. There is no basis to believe that he has a claim or defense that shares a common question of law or fact with the main action. The Court denies him intervention. As a non-party he may not seek dismissal of the action.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Daniel Gabino Marines is denied intervention in this action and the Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 8) is DENIED.
Source: Leagle