descrybe logo
You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.

Southwest Center for Biological Diversity, a Non-Profit Corporation, Southwest Trout, a Non-Profit Corporation, Sky-Island Watch, an Unincorporated Association v. United States Forest Service, and in Their Official Capacities, Apache-Sitgreaves National Forest Supervisor John Bedell, Coconino National Forest Supervisor Fred Trevey, Corondao National Forest Supervisor John McGree Gila National Forest Supervisor Abel Camarena, Prescott National Forest Supervisor Mike King, Tonto National Forest Supervisor Charles Bazan, and Arizona Cattle Growers' Assoc., Defendant-Intervenor-Appellee-Cross-Appellant, and New Mexico Cattle Growers Assoc., Defendant-Intervenor-Appellee. Forest Guardians v. United States Forest Service, Daniel Glickman, in His Capacity as Secretary of Agriculture of the United States, and United States Fish and Wildlife Service

Citations: 355 F.3d 1203; 57 ERC (BNA) 1960; 2004 U.S. App. LEXIS 1151Docket: 01-16092

Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit; January 26, 2004; Federal Appellate Court

Narrative Opinion Summary

The case involves plaintiffs Southwest Center for Biological Diversity, Southwest Trout, Sky-Island Watch, and Forest Guardians appealing against the United States Forest Service and various national forest supervisors. The appeal numbers are 01-16092 and 01-16277, heard by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on January 27, 2004. The court noted that the case became moot after a prior opinion was published (Southwest Center for Biological Diversity v. United States Forest Service, 307 F.3d 964 (9th Cir. 2002)). As a result, the court exercised its discretion to withdraw the prior opinion and decided not to remand the case to the district court for consideration of vacating its decision. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as moot. The order was issued by Circuit Judges Canby and Rymer, alongside Senior District Judge Bertelsman, who sat by designation.

Legal Issues Addressed

Court's Discretion to Withdraw Opinions

Application: Exercising its discretion, the court withdrew the prior opinion due to the mootness of the case.

Reasoning: As a result, the court exercised its discretion to withdraw the prior opinion and decided not to remand the case to the district court for consideration of vacating its decision.

Dismissal of Appeals as Moot

Application: The appeal was dismissed on the grounds of mootness by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Reasoning: Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as moot.

Mootness in Appellate Proceedings

Application: The court determined that the case was moot following the publication of a prior opinion, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.

Reasoning: The court noted that the case became moot after a prior opinion was published (Southwest Center for Biological Diversity v. United States Forest Service, 307 F.3d 964 (9th Cir. 2002)).