Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

People for Ethical Treatment of Animals, Inc. v. United States Fish & Wildlife Service

United States District Court, E.D. Virginia

September 8, 2015

PEOPLE FOR THE ETHICAL TREATMENT OF ANIMALS, INC., Plaintiff,
v.
UNITED STATES FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE, ET AL., Defendants

          For People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, Inc., Plaintiff: Jeffrey Scott Kerr, LEAD ATTORNEY, PETA Foundation, Washington, DC.

         For United States Fish and Wildlife Service, Sally Jewell, in her official capacity as Secretary of the Interior, Defendants: Kimere Jane Kimball, LEAD ATTORNEY, U.S. Attorney's Office (Alexandria-NA, Alexandria, VA.

         For Dallas Safari Club, Republic of Namibia, Ministry of Environment and Tourism, Defendants: Dennis Dean Kirk, Schmitz & Socarras LLP, Falls Church, VA.

         For Conservation Force, Intervenor Defendant: Dennis Dean Kirk, Schmitz & Socarras LLP, Falls Church, VA.

Page 1000

         MEMORANDUM OPINION

         CLAUDE M. HILTON, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

         THIS MATTER comes before the Court on Defendants' Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction.

         Plaintiff's Complaint challenges all Endangered Species Act (" ESA" ) Section 10 (a) (1) (A) enhancement permits issued by Defendant U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's Division of Management Authority. Plaintiff alleges that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has a policy of issuing Section 10 permits to applicants who commit to contribute funds to conservation organizations, which Plaintiff calls a " Pay-to-Play" policy. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants routinely exchange " Pay-to-Play" permits authorizing the export and import of endangered species for minimal monetary

Page 1001

contributions to unrelated conservation projects.

         " 'Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction,' possessing 'only that power authorized by Constitution and statute.'" Gunn v. Minton, 133 S.Ct. 1059, 1064, 185 L.Ed.2d 72 (2013) (quoting Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of America, 511 U.S. 375, 377, 114 S.Ct. 1673, 128 L.Ed.2d 391 (1994)). Plaintiff's claim for relief is subject to dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b) (1), which authorizes a federal court to dismiss a claim that does not fall within the court's subject matter jurisdiction.

         Taking the allegations of Plaintiff's Complaint as true, Plaintiff failed to establish subject matter jurisdiction before this Court. Plaintiff is not entitled to relief because Plaintiff does not challenge agency action that is subject to judicial review.

         To establish standing to challenge agency action, a plaintiff must " identify some 'agency action' that affects [the plaintiff] in the specified fashion." Lujan v. Nat'l Wildlife Fed'n, 497 U.S. 871, 882, 110 S.Ct. 3177, 111 L.Ed.2d 695 (1990). The APA provides, " [a] person suffering legal wrong because of agency action, or adversely affected or aggrieved by agency action within the meaning of a relevant statute, is entitled to judicial review thereof." 5 U.S.C. § 702.

         However, not every agency activity is an " agency action" under the APA. " Agency action" is limited to " the whole or a part of an agency rule, order, license, sanction, relief, or the equivalent or denial thereof, or failure to act." 5 U.S.C. § 551 (13). " All of those categories involve circumscribed, discrete agency actions, as their definitions make clear." Norton v. S. Utah ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.