Xa'lcin v. United States Fish and Wildlife Service, CV 19-20-M-DWM. (2019)
Court: District Court, D. Montana
Number: infdco20190610d44
Visitors: 35
Filed: Jun. 07, 2019
Latest Update: Jun. 07, 2019
Summary: ORDER DONALD W. MOLLOY , District Judge . This suit alleges the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and U.S. Forest Service violated the Endangered Species Act ("ESA") by approving the Rock Creek Mine in the Cabinet Mountains. Defendants request a stay so they can review the decisional documents challenged in this case. (Doc. 26.) Specifically, Defendants are assessing the impact of events that have occurred since those documents were completed. They argue a stay is necessary because the review
Summary: ORDER DONALD W. MOLLOY , District Judge . This suit alleges the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and U.S. Forest Service violated the Endangered Species Act ("ESA") by approving the Rock Creek Mine in the Cabinet Mountains. Defendants request a stay so they can review the decisional documents challenged in this case. (Doc. 26.) Specifically, Defendants are assessing the impact of events that have occurred since those documents were completed. They argue a stay is necessary because the review m..
More
ORDER
DONALD W. MOLLOY, District Judge.
This suit alleges the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and U.S. Forest Service violated the Endangered Species Act ("ESA") by approving the Rock Creek Mine in the Cabinet Mountains. Defendants request a stay so they can review the decisional documents challenged in this case. (Doc. 26.) Specifically, Defendants are assessing the impact of events that have occurred since those documents were completed. They argue a stay is necessary because the review may result in the amendment, supplementation, or withdrawal of the documents, which could affect this litigation.
Defendants are free to withdraw or amend their decisional documents at any time. But they cannot delay ongoing litigation to shore up the administrative record or search for post-hoc rationalizations based on new information. See Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Serv., 450 F.3d 930, 943 (9th Cir. 2006). Unless and until the documents are withdrawn or amended, Defendants must defend against the existing allegations. Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Defendants' Motion to Stay (Doc. 26) is DENIED. A scheduling order based on the parties' proposed case management plan is forthcoming.
Source: Leagle
