Coalition for Sustainable Resources Inc. vs. USFS

Home Browse Search

Y ~ Page 12 48 F. Supp. 2d 1303, *; 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7198, **; 48 ERC (BNA) 1753 dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, the Court can look beyond the pleadings if the defendant is not asserting a facial attack. See Holt v. United States, 46 F.3d 1000, 1002-03 (IOth Cir. 1995). However, as will be more fully discussed below, the Court's review of the law on standing reveals that the defendants may not submit additional materials to defeat standing at the motion to dismiss stage, despite the fact that standing is a jurisdictional question. See, e.g., Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. SSS, 561, 119 L. Ed. 2d 351, 112 S. Ct. 2130 (1992). First, the plaintiffmust have suffered an injury in fact--an invasion of a legally protected interest which is (a) concrete and particularized, and (b) actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical. Second, there must be a causal connection between the injury and the conduct complained of--the injury has to be fairly ... traceable to the challenged action of the defendant, and not ... the result [of] the independent action of some third party not before the court. Third, it must be likely, as opposed to merely speculative, that the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision. H. 5tanding n3 n3 For reasons that will be explained later in this order, the standing and ripeness analyses will only deal with Plaintiffs ESA claims because Plaintiffs NRRRPA claim must be dismissed because the United States has not waived its sovereign immunity. Any NRRRPA claim must be brought through the APA, where a waiver of sovereign immunity can be found. **16 Defendants have attacked the standing of Plaintiff to bring this lawsuit. Standing is grounded in Article III of the U.S. Constitution, which restricts federal court adjudication to actual cases or controversies. See Allen v. Wright, 468 U.S. 737, 750, 82 L. Ed. 2d 556, 104 S. Ct. 3315 (1984). [*1310] "Standing is but one of several gatekeepers founded in concern about the proper--and properly limited--role of the courts in a democratic society." Utah v. Babbitt, 137 F.3d 1193, 1201 (IOth Cir. 1998) (internal quotation marks omitted). Because Plaintiff has invoked Article III jurisdiction to challenge the conduct of the executive branch of the federal government, the necessity of a case or controversy is of extreme importance. See id at 1202. "The warnings against unrestrained exercise of the power of judicial review over the conduct of the executive or congressional branches by relaxing the standing requirements are numerous and dire." Id. (citing numerous authorities). Accordingly, "these principles mandate strict compliance with the standing requirements." Id. (citing Raines v. Byrd, 521 U.S. 811, 117 S. Ct. 2312, 2317, 138 L. Ed. 2d 849 (1997)). The following [**17] elements must be established by the plaintiffto demonstrate standing: Lujan, 504 U.S. at 560-61. The standing requirements are not mere pleading requirements, but instead are an indispensable part of the plaintiffs case; "each element must be supported in the same way as any other matter on which the plaintiff bears the burden of proof, i.e., with the manner and degree of evidence required at the successive stages of litigation." Id. at 561. At the motion to dismiss stage, general factual allegations of injury resulting from the defendants' conduct will suffice because [**18] upon a motion to dismiss, the Court presumes that the general allegations embrace the more specific allegations. See id. Upon a motion for summary judgment, however, the plaintiff can no longer rest upon mere allegations and must put forth specific facts by affidavit or other evidence. See id. And at the final stage, those facts must be supported by the evidence. See id. This brings up a preliminary matter that must be addressed. Defendants have submitted an entire volume of additional evidence in support of their motion to dismiss. Although not mentioned in their brief, Defendants apparently assumed that since their motion was, in part, one to dismiss for lack of standing (which is jurisdictional in nature) additional materials could be submitted without converting the motion to one for summary judgment. Plaintiff has opposed this attempt, citing the principles announced above. The Court has since conducted an exhaustive review of the law in this area. As it turns out, although standing is jurisdictional in nature, courts have treated standing "different" than other jurisdictional issues on a motion to dismiss. Lujan specifically avers that standing is to be analyzed [**19] at successive stages under differing burdens on the plaintiff. This notion goes against the idea of allowing the defendants to submit outside evidence at the motion to dismiss stage to defeat standing. Furthermore, the Court did not uncover one case where the defendant was allowed to submit additional evidence to defeat standing at the motion to dismiss stage; indeed, to do so flies in the face of Lujan's explanation of differing burdens at successive stages in the litigation.