COTTONWOOD ENVIRONMENTAL LAW CENTER v. SHEEP EXPERIMENT STATION (2019)

MEMORANDUM ***

Cottonwood Environmental Law Center (Cottonwood) appeals the district court's order dismissing its motion for a preliminary injunction for lack of jurisdiction.

The inaction of the Agricultural Research Service (ARS) in response to Cottonwood's demand that it prepare a supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) did not constitute “agency action unlawfully withheld or unreasonably delayed” under 5 U.S.C. § 706(1), because the ARS had no discrete statutory duty to prepare a supplemental EIS in the period before it issued a final Record of Decision, see Norton v. S. Utah Wilderness All., 542 U.S. 55, 64, 124 S.Ct. 2373, 159 L.Ed.2d 137 (2004). Because the ARS's actions were not subject to judicial review under the APA, the district court lacked jurisdiction to hear Cottonwood's claims. Nippon Miniature Bearing Corp. v. Weise, 230 F.3d 1131, 1139 (9th Cir. 2000). Further, Cottonwood's claims were not ripe for judicial review because “judicial intervention would inappropriately interfere with further administrative action” in this case and because “the courts would benefit from further factual development of the issues.” See Ohio Forestry Ass'n, Inc. v. Sierra Club, 523 U.S. 726, 733, 118 S.Ct. 1665, 140 L.Ed.2d 921 (1998).

Because “there is no mandatory sequencing of jurisdictional issues” and this court can dispose of threshold issues in any order before reaching the merits, see Sinochem Int'l Co. v. Malaysia Int'l Shipping Corp., 549 U.S. 422, 431, 127 S.Ct. 1184, 167 L.Ed.2d 15 (2007) (internal quotation marks omitted), we do not reach the parties’ arguments regarding mootness and redressability.

AFFIRMED.