Case: 09-15176 04/27/2009 Page: 1 of 41 ID: 6896712 DktEntry: 7
IN THE NINTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS
WINNEMUCCA INDIAN COLONY; SHARON WASSON; THOMAS WASSON; JUDY ROJO; ELVERINE No. 09-15176 CASTRO; PETER LITSER; STEPHEN D.C. No. 2:06-cv-00497- LDG- ERICKSON; KIM TOWNSEND; PAL VIRGINIA SANCHEZ; JACK District of Nevada, Las Vegas MALOTTE; ARVILLA MASCARENAS; PATRICIA AXELROD;
Plaintiffs - Appellants, v.
UNITES STATES OF AMERICA; ROBERT M. GATES, Secretary of the United States Department of Defense; LINTON BROOKS, Director of the National Nuclear Security Administration; JAMES TEGNELIA, Director of the Defense Thread Reduction Agency,
Defendants - Appellees, ______/
APPELLANT’S OPENING BRIEF
HAGER & HEARNE U.S. ATTORNEY’S OFFICE Robert R. Hager, SBN 1482 Michael Thomas Gray, SBN____ Treva J. Hearne, SBN 4450 P.O. Box 23795 245 E. Liberty Street, Ste. 110 L’Enfante Plaza Station Reno, NV 89501 Washington, D.C. 20026-3795 Tele: 775-329-5800 Tele: (202) 305-4903 Attorneys for Plaintiffs-Appellants Case: 09-15176 04/27/2009 Page: 2 of 41 ID: 6896712 DktEntry: 7
U.S. ATTORNEY’S OFFICE Blaine T. Welsh, SBN______333 Las Vegas Blvd., So. Suite 5000 Las Vegas, NV 89101 Tele: (702) 388-6336 Case: 09-15176 04/27/2009 Page: 3 of 41 ID: 6896712 DktEntry: 7
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. Statement of Subject Matter and Appellate Jurisdiction 1
Jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals 1
II. Statement of the Case 2
III. Statement of the Issues 3
IV. Summary of Argument 3
V. Argument 4
A. The Chronology of the litigation in this matter demonstrates that Plaintiffs’ are the prevailing parties . 4
B. Plaintiffs were the prevailing party in that the objective of the Plaintiffs’ injunction claim was met by Defendants’ permanent cancellation of a 700 ton open-air explosive detonation at the Nevada test site. 15
C. The District Court was in error in denying the Plaintiffs’ request for attorneys’ fees and costs because the Plaintiffs were the prevailing party. 17
1. The District Court did change the legal relationship of the parties. 18
2. The Plaintiffs were the prevailing party because the objective they sought received judicial sanction 23
3. The Plaintiffs are entitled to attorney’s fees and costs because they are substantially prevailing parties under NEPA, the Clean Water Act, and the Endangered Species Act because the Government had no substantial justification for its position. 28, 29
i Case: 09-15176 04/27/2009 Page: 4 of 41 ID: 6896712 DktEntry: 7
VI. Conclusion 30
VII. Certificate of Compliance 33
VIII. Certificate of Service 34
IX. Statement of All Known Related Case and Appeals, Certification Required by BAP Rule 8010(a)-1(c) 35
ii Case: 09-15176 04/27/2009 Page: 5 of 41 ID: 6896712 DktEntry: 7
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
FEDERAL CASES
Buono v. Norton, 371 F.3d 543, 546 (2003) 27
Californians for Alternatives to Toxics v. U.S. Fores Service, 2007, U.S. Dist. LEXIS 78424 (2007) citing Carbonnel at page 901) 22
Carbonell v. INS, 429 F.3d 894 (9th Cir. 2005) 22, 23, 23
FOE v. Laidlaw, at page 172 citing Whitmore v. Arkansas 27
Friends of the Earth, Inc., et al. v. Laidlaw Environmental Services, Inc., 528 U.S. 167, 120 S.Ct., 693, 145 L.Ed. 2d 610(2000) citing United States v. Concentrated Phosphate Export Assn., Inc. 26
Klamath Siskiyou Wildlands Center v. BLM, 522 F. Supp. 2d 1302 (D. Ore. 2007) 22
Li v. Keisler, 505 F.3d 913, 919 (9th Cir. 2007) 29
Lohn, 522, F.Supp, 1295(D. Ore. 2007) 23, 24
Oregon Natural Desert Ass’n v. Lohn, 522 F.Supp. 1295 (D. Ore 2007) 23
Salmon River Concerned Citizens et al. v. California Coalition for Alternatives to Pesticides, 32 F.3d 1346 (1994) 27
Sullivan v. Hudson, 490 U.S. 877, 109 S.Ct. 2248, 104 L.Ed. 2nd 941 (1980) 17
United States v. Concentrate Phosphate Export Assn.,
iii Case: 09-15176 04/27/2009 Page: 6 of 41 ID: 6896712 DktEntry: 7
Inc., 393 U.S. 199, 203, 21 L.Ed. 2d 344, 89 S.Ct., 361 (1968) 26, 27
U.S. v. Hallmark Construction Co., 200, F.3d 1076, 1080 (7th Cir. 2000) 14, 28
Whitmore v. Arkansas, 495 U.S. 149, 158, 109 L.Ed. 2d 135, 110 S.Ct. 1717. 27
iv Case: 09-15176 04/27/2009 Page: 7 of 41 ID: 6896712 DktEntry: 7
RULES & STATUTES
5 U.S. C. 702 1
28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1362, 1367 and 2201 1
42 U.S.C. § 4321 1
16 U.S.C. § 1536(a)(2) 1
28 U.S. C. § 1391 1
Title 28 U.S.C. 41 1
28 U.S.C 1291 2
42 U.S.C. § 4332 7
33 U.S.C. § 1251 10
16 U.S.C § 1536 (a)(2) 11
Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C 7412 9, 10
Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA) 17, 22, 23, 30
Migratory Bird Act, 16 U.S.C. § 793 11
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. 4223 7, 8, 9, 27, 31. 32
Radiation Exposure Compensation Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2210 6, 8, 31 (RECA)
Wild and Free Roaming Hose and Burro Act, 16 U.S.C § 1331 11
v Case: 09-15176 04/27/2009 Page: 8 of 41 ID: 6896712 DktEntry: 7
I.
STATEMENT OF SUBJECT MATTER AND APPELLATE
JURISDICTION
This District Court had jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action pursuant to the Constitution and laws of the United States, including, but not limited to, 5 U.S.C. 702, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1362, 1367, and 2201, 42 U.S.C.§ 4321, et seq.. 16 U.S.C.§ 1536(a)(2) and the Constitution, treaties and laws of the
United States, including federal common law. This is a civil action brought by a
Native American or Indian Nation, and by individuals who are members of that
Nation, and other citizens of the United States of America, and the claims arise under the Constitution, treaties and laws of the United States.
2. The venue of this action was properly placed in the District of
Nevada pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391 because Plaintiffs’ claims arise in this district, more particularly, at the Nevada Test Site totally contained within the State of Nevada.
JURISDICTION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS
The jurisdiction of this Appeal is properly with the Ninth Circuit
Court of Appeals pursuant to Title 28 U.S.C. 41. The Court of Appeals has jurisdiction from final decisions of the District Court pursuant to 28
///
- 1 - Case: 09-15176 04/27/2009 Page: 9 of 41 ID: 6896712 DktEntry: 7
U.S.C.§ 1291. This appeal is taken from an Order dismissing the claims of the Plaintiffs for attorneys’ fees and costs.
II.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Defendants’ decision to detonate seven hundred (700) tons of explosives on the surface of the ground at the Nevada Test Site (NTS) was unreasonable and without substantial justification and the Defendants were thwarted in their intentions and efforts to detonate that huge bomb solely and as a direct result of the litigation filed by the Plaintiffs. The Plaintiffs have requested attorneys’ fees because they materially changed the legal relationship between the Plaintiffs and the government by Court intervention.
The Defendants announced in the press that the Divine Strake would be detonated at the Nevada Test Site making a mushroom cloud over Las
Vegas without first submitting an adequate environmental document for public review. The Plaintiffs’ litigation caused the postponement and finally the cancellation of the detonation. The government had no substantial justification for its actions to schedule the detonation nor for its failure to submit environmental documentation for public review.
The Court dismissed the Plaintiffs’ complaint after over twelve (12)
- 2 - Case: 09-15176 04/27/2009 Page: 10 of 41 ID: 6896712 DktEntry: 7
months of litigation to thwart the government each time it re-scheduled the detonation until it finally cancelled the test. The Plaintiffs’ applied for attorneys’ fees which the District Court denied. This appeal followed.
III.
STATEMENT OF ISSUES
1. Did the District Court err in determining that the Plaintiffs were not
prevailing parties because there had not been judicial sanction of the relief
sought?
2. Did the District Court alter the legal relationship of the parties in a
material way by ordering the status quo and ordering thirty days notice of
the rescheduling of any detonation of Divine Strake?
3. Did the District Court err in not considering the substantial justification
of the federal Defendants’ position when determining the prevailing party
status of the Plaintiffs?
IV.
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
When the federal Defendants announced in the newspaper that the
Divine Strake bomb would be tested in the radioactive soils of the Nevada
Test Site, the Plaintiffs, a band of the Western Shoshone of eastern and
southern Nevada and the downwinders, residents of Nevada and Utah, filed
- 3 - Case: 09-15176 04/27/2009 Page: 11 of 41 ID: 6896712 DktEntry: 7
a Complaint and Motion for Temporary and Preliminary Injunction to stop the detonation. The Court held an immediate hearing and imposed the status quo and ordered that the federal Defendants give thirty (30) days notice to the Court and to the Plaintiffs prior to rescheduling any detonation of Divine Strake at the Nevada test site. This judicial intervention led to the ultimate withdrawal of the decision to detonate
Divine Strake. The Plaintiffs should have been determined prevailing
parties and awarded their attorneys’ costs and fees.
V.
ARGUMENT
A.
The Chronology of the litigation in this matter
demonstrates that Plaintiffs’ are the prevailing parties.
On April 4, 2006, the Defendants, the United States of America,
Robert M. Gates, the Secretary of the United States Department of Defense,
Linton Brooks, the Director of the National Nuclear Security
Administration and James Teglia, the Director of the Defense Threat
Reduction Agency, announced as a final decision that they would conduct
“Divine Strake,” an above-ground detonation of 700 tons of high explosives
at the Nevada Test Site, and that the resulting “mushroom cloud . . . may
- 4 - Case: 09-15176 04/27/2009 Page: 12 of 41 ID: 6896712 DktEntry: 7
reach an altitude of 10,000 feet.” (EOR 00085) The “mushroom cloud” resulting from “Divine Strake”would contain poisonous, toxic, radioactive nuclear debris which was, and continues to be, found in the soil at the
Nevada Test Site solely as a proximate result of Defendant United States having conducted atmospheric and underground nuclear testing at the Site in the 1950's and 1960's.(EOR 00097 - 00099, 00114 - 00116, 00118 -
00137, 00151 - 00172, 00173 - 00203). The Plaintiffs alleged in the
Complaint filed in this matter that the Defendants contemplated and knew the announced “mushroom cloud” caused as a result of the detonation of
Divine Strake would travel in the direction of the downwinder Plaintiffs.
(EOR 00013, paragraph 20, EOR 00015, paragraph 29; and EOR 00029, paragraph 116).
The Plaintiffs further alleged that the Defendant United States was fraudulently and maliciously vouching for the safety of “Divine Strake,” with knowledge that the “mushroom cloud” would disseminate deadly, highly radioactive debris across the United States and the world, and that the radiation exposure to humans posed a clear and present danger of irreparable harm to the cellular RNA and DNA of persons exposed to that
- 5 - Case: 09-15176 04/27/2009 Page: 13 of 41 ID: 6896712 DktEntry: 7
radioactive material, including without limitation, the health problems 1
(EOR 00049 - 00203) which were admitted to be so caused by Defendant
United States in the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act, 42 U.S.C. §
2210. Residents of the States of Utah and Nevada were exposed to wind- borne radioactive fallout and debris caused by the atmospheric above- ground testing of nuclear weapons at the Nevada Test Site during the 1950's and 1960's by Defendants and their predecessors in interest, again, as admitted in the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act.
The Plaintiffs alleged that the “Divine Strake” explosion was a major federal action which significantly affected the quality of the human environment in that, inter alia, the reasonably foreseeable dissemination of wind-borne radio nuclides will cause significant adverse effects to the quality of the human environment and the health of the Plaintiffs. The
Defendants knew or should have known that the “Divine Strake” comprised a “major federal action” with reference to NEPA, such that the Defendants
1 The Plaintiffs alleged, based upon the reports prepared by the expert witnesses, that serious, permanent and fatal health risks to those affected by radiation exposure from such tests would occur, including without limitation, leukemia, multiple myeloma, lymphoma, primary cancer of the thyroid, male or female breast, esophagus, stomach, pharynx, small intestine, pancreas, bile ducts, gall bladder, salivary gland, urinary bladder, brain, colon, ovary, liver and lung, and, genetic problems, sterility, and birth defects.
- 6 - Case: 09-15176 04/27/2009 Page: 14 of 41 ID: 6896712 DktEntry: 7
were required to satisfy the statutory mandates by preparing an
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), including a written statement by
Defendants on:
(1) the environmental impact of the proposed action;
(2) any adverse environmental effects which cannot be avoided should the proposal be implemented;
(3) alternatives to the proposed action;
(4) the relationship between local short-term uses of man’s environment and the maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity; and
(5) any irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources
which would be involved in the proposed action should it be implemented.2
(EOR00092 - 00095).
The Plaintiffs alleged that the Defendants failed to give adequate and legal notice of their plan to conduct “Divine Strake,” including without limitation, failed to publish notice in the Federal Register, failed to give notice reasonably designed to inform groups and individuals which
Defendants knew would be affected and would voice the same objections as
2 42 U.S.C. § 4332
- 7 - Case: 09-15176 04/27/2009 Page: 15 of 41 ID: 6896712 DktEntry: 7
the Plaintiffs had to the proposed “Divine Strake” during the comment period required by law, and failed to give notice to those persons already known by Defendants to have contracted certain cancers and other serious diseases in geographic areas known to Defendants as reflected by Radiation
Exposure Compensation Act (RECA), 42 U.S.C.§ 2210. The Plaintiffs alleged that the Defendants were responsible for making the proper decision under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 42 U.S.C.
4223 and the Defendants had been aware of the objections of the Western
Shoshone Plaintiffs and the Downwinders Plaintiffs prior to Defendants having made their final agency decision to conduct “Divine Strake”.
The crux of the Plaintiffs’ Complaint was that the Defendants failed to complete the steps prior to a proper final agency decision to conduct
“Divine Strake,” and they failed and refused to perform any EIS or a programmatic EIS (which would evaluate the cumulative effects of the more
than single test which was misrepresented in the Environmental Analysis
Report of this project, but admitted to the State of Nevada), or to conduct
the necessary evaluation of “Divine Strake” as required under the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). EOR 00008 - EOR 00203). Further, the
Plaintiffs alleged that the Defendants failed to comply with the
requirements of NEPA which would require that there be a proper and
- 8 - Case: 09-15176 04/27/2009 Page: 16 of 41 ID: 6896712 DktEntry: 7
meaningful publication of the intent to conduct this test; and, this
notification is intended by the Act to provide an opportunity for public, federal and state agency comment and evaluation of those comments and a proposal for mitigation of any significant impacts in the final environmental analysis all to be completed before a Finding of No Significant Impact was adopted. After these allegations, the Defendants published the
environmental documentation to which the Plaintiffs commented with the
expert reports that thoroughly criticized the superficial and plainly
incorrect analysis by the Defendants’ contractor of the environmental
impacts of the proposed detonation. After these comments, when they were
finally allowed after this litigation was filed, the Defendants, rather than
responding, withdrew the plans to detonate Divine Strake.
The Plaintiffs alleged that the Defendants failed and refused to
comply with the requirements that they demonstrate, pursuant to the
Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 7412 et seq., that federal and state air contaminant
levels would not be exceeded before a Finding of No Significant Impact
was adopted. (EOR 00031, paragraphs 122 - 124) . The Plaintiffs alleged
that the Defendants failed and refused to comply with the requirements of the Clean Air Act in that they applied for a Class 2 permit from the State of
Nevada and failed to file an application with the United States
- 9 - Case: 09-15176 04/27/2009 Page: 17 of 41 ID: 6896712 DktEntry: 7
Environmental Protection Agency as is required. Rather than respond to
these comments, the Defendants withdrew the plans to detonate Divine
Strake.
The Plaintiffs further alleged that the Defendants failed and refused
to comply with the requirements of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1362 et
seq., which prohibited the discharge of any pollutant, of which radio
nuclides was a pollutant according to 33 U.S.C.§ 1251 et seq., into waters of
the United States without an National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
Systems (NPDES) permit. (EOR 0031, paragraphs 125 - 128; EOR 0032,
paragraph 129). The Plaintiffs pointed out that the detonation of this
massive amount of explosives as was contemplated by the Divine Strake
project would have caused potential discharge into the wetlands, bodies of
water and groundwater in and around the Nevada Test Site, including but
not limited to, bodies and water sources miles from the detonation. Rather
than respond to these allegations, the Defendants cancelled the detonation
of Divine Strake.
The Plaintiffs alleged that the Defendants had failed to seek
consultation regarding the desert tortoise, those animals protected by the
Wild and Free Roaming Horse and Burro Act, 16 U.S.C.§ 1331, and the
Migratory Bird Act, 16 U.S.C.§ 703, and the bird species protected by the
- 10 - Case: 09-15176 04/27/2009 Page: 18 of 41 ID: 6896712 DktEntry: 7
State of Nevada, all in violation of 16 U.S.C.§ 1536 (a)(2). (EOR 00032, paragraphs 130 - 132). The Defendants, rather than respond to these allegations, cancelled the detonation of Divine Strake.
Chronology critical to understanding the series of events that led to
the cancellation of Divine Strake. (EOR 001 - 004; EOR 00205 generally for
the dates admitted by the federal Defendants and specifically as indicated):
1. November, 2005: DIVINE STRAKE Pre-Approval Draft EA;
2. January 30, 2006: Defendants issued FONSI approving blast;
3. April 4, 2006: DTRA Press Release announcing 6/2/06 blast
date;
4. April 20, 2006: Plaintiffs file Complaint and TRO Motion
(Docket No. 1, EOR 00537);
5. May 3, 2006: Defendants’ withdraw FONSI and cancel blast;
6. May 5, 2006: DIVINE STRAKE report a Revised EA;
7. May 9, 2006: Defendants adopts a Revised FONSI approving
6/23/06 blast;
8. May 22, 2006: Plaintiffs file Second Amended Complaint and
Motion (Docket No. 25, EOR 00539);
9. May 26, 2006: Defendants withdraw Revised FONSI and
abandon 6/23/06 blast at this time (Docket No. 29, EOR
- 11 - Case: 09-15176 04/27/2009 Page: 19 of 41 ID: 6896712 DktEntry: 7
00539-00540);
10. The District Court holds a status conference where the
Defendants are required by the Court to announce the status of
the blast and the government reported that there was no
authorization for blast. (Docket No. 39, EOR 00541);
10. December 20, 2006: Defendants issue Draft DIVINE STRAKE
Revised EA, Site Characterization, and related supporting
documents;
11. January 31, 2007: The Court requests from the government
that any filings be provided to the Court’s chambers along with
electronic filing. The government states that it will notify the
Plaintiff and the Court with 30 days notice if a test is to be
performed. (Docket No. 45, EOR 00542);
12. February 6, 2007: Plaintiffs file their written comments and
experts’ opinions with Defendants and challenge to Draft
Revised EA with the Court; and
12. February 22, 2007: Defendants announce permanent
cancellation of plans for Divine Strake 700 ton detonation,
which is confirmed to the Court on March 2, 2007. (Docket No.
50, EOR 00542-00543).
- 12 - Case: 09-15176 04/27/2009 Page: 20 of 41 ID: 6896712 DktEntry: 7
The above brief chronology shows the following time periods between
the Plaintiffs’ written challenges to the Defendants’ scheme to detonate the
Divine Strake bomb, the Court requiring a response, and the Defendants’
cancellation of their decisions:
Time between 1st Plaintiffs’ filing and cancellation: 13 days
Time between 2nd Plaintiffs’ filing and cancellation: 4 days
Time between 3rd Plaintiffs’ filing and cancellation: 16 days
There are two reasons why the Defendants cancelled their plans to
detonate the 700 ton bomb very shortly after each written challenge by the
Plaintiffs. First, the District Court had made clear by its prompt scheduling
of evidentiary hearings and continued monitoring of this case by regularly
scheduled status conferences that the Plaintiffs would be provided an
evidentiary hearing to challenge the Defendants’ stated opinions that the
blast would not pose any health risk. Second, the Plaintiffs’ pleadings and
written expert opinions made clear that the Plaintiffs were prepared to
prove that the Defendants had each time falsely vouched for the safety of
the huge blast and maintained that the litigation was without merit when
the government pressed forward with its decision making process without
- 13 - Case: 09-15176 04/27/2009 Page: 21 of 41 ID: 6896712 DktEntry: 7
any substantial justification.3
What was not reflected by the above chronology and the quick
cancellations by Defendants of their blast plans was the extent of time and
money that was expended by Plaintiffs’ counsel and their experts in
successfully stopping the Defendants from carrying out their dangerous
plan. That extensive work by Plaintiffs’ counsel and their experts was
reflected by the filings in the District Court, the day- long hearing before the
District Court, and the response each and every time the Defendants
attempted their ill conceived and unjustified detonation.
///
///
///
B.
Plaintiffs were the prevailing party in that the objective of the Plaintiffs’ injunction claim was met by Defendants’ permanent cancellation of a 700 ton open-air explosive detonation at the Nevada test site.
Plaintiffs sought attorneys’ fees and costs for having successfully
prevented Defendants from carrying through with their plans to detonate
3 U.S. v. Hallmark Construction Co., 200 F.3d 1076, 1080 (7th Cir. 2000)
- 14 - Case: 09-15176 04/27/2009 Page: 22 of 41 ID: 6896712 DktEntry: 7
700 tons of high explosives on the surface at the NTS. (EOR 00451 -
00526). Moreover, as proven at the evidentiary hearing on this Motion by
the testimony of Plaintiffs’ experts, the Defendants procedure that was
adopted in order to conduct the Divine Strake detonation was without
substantial justification, and the Defendants’ false assurances that the blast
would be safe were the result of incompetence or dishonesty. Given the
government’s past history of lies to downwinders and nuclear veterans, and
the resulting horrors of birth defects and tens of thousands of cancers in the
downwind American population, it was in the public interest for the
agencies’ blatant disregard for science and truth to have been submitted to
an appropriate and timely environmental discussion.4 The District Court
failed to make any findings whatsoever regarding the substantial
justification of the government based upon the evidence provided by the
Plaintiffs.
Plaintiffs presented evidence that proved the Defendants’ decisions
to detonate the Divine Strake bomb failed to include the public in a
4 Id. at page 1079, “. . .the government bears the burden of proving that its position meets the substantially justified standard. . . “ ”. . . the district court must reexamine the legal and factual circumstances of the case from a different perspective than that used at any other stage of the proceeding. . .” At page 1080.
- 15 - Case: 09-15176 04/27/2009 Page: 23 of 41 ID: 6896712 DktEntry: 7
meaningful discussion to test the impacts to the environment and the government’s consultants report was prepared without adherence to basic scientific procedures. While an award of fees and costs to Plaintiffs is proper where Defendants have decided to act under such circumstances, such a finding and award are also important in this case so that it is made clear to agencies like the federal Defendants herein, that unsubstantiated decisions made in flagrant disobedience to the letter and the spirit of the environmental laws, approving dangerous major federal actions will not be tolerated, particularly when they portend great risk to public health.
The complexity of the public health issues related to the re- suspension of radioactivity and the need for highly-qualified expert witnesses in this specialized area of science and medicine both caused this action to be time-consuming and difficult for Plaintiffs’ counsel. Plaintiffs’
counsel were required to locate and obtain experts who are world renown
in their field. Plaintiffs’ counsel likewise had to make certain that these
experts had unimpeachable qualifications for the conclusions, reports and testimony provided to this Court regarding the government’s decision.
The Plaintiffs had to review 30,000 pages of administrative record allegedly prepared by the Defendants but was, in fact, the history of the
Nevada Test Site and minimal environmental studies by the Defendants.
- 16 - Case: 09-15176 04/27/2009 Page: 24 of 41 ID: 6896712 DktEntry: 7
None of this would have been brought to the District Court’s attention without the expert witness reviews and reports and the Plaintiffs’ aggressive litigation of this matter.
C.
The District Court was in error in denying the
Plaintiffs’ request for attorneys’ fees and costs because
the Plaintiffs were the prevailing party.
The Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA) was passed by Congress in
1980 in response to concerns that persons would be deterred from seeking
review of, or defending against, unreasonable governmental action becasue
of the expense involved securing the vindication of their rights. 5 The
District Court determined that the Plaintiffs were not the prevailing parties
based upon the fact that there was no judicial sanction that changed the
relationship of the parties. This is an erroneous interpretation of the law in
this matter.
1. The District Court did change the legal relationship of the parties.
The District Court did change the relationship of the parties by
5 Sullivan v. Hudson, 490 U.S. 877, 109 S.Ct. 2248, 104 L.Ed. 2d 941(1980)
- 17 - Case: 09-15176 04/27/2009 Page: 25 of 41 ID: 6896712 DktEntry: 7
monitoring the actions of the federal Defendants, ordering the federal
Defendants to give thirty (30) days’ notice of any scheduled detonation of
the Divine Strake to the Court and to the Plaintiffs and by ordering the
status quo which was in effect stopping the federal Defendants from
scheduling any further detonations of Divine Strake. The fact that the
Plaintiffs succeeded by court intervention to stop the Defendants march to
detonation makes them the prevailing parties. This was more than a
catalyst to stop the Defendants, it was judicial sanction to stop the
Defendants and cause the withdrawal of the detonation.
There can absolutely be no doubt that, but for this lawsuit and the
District Court’s prompt scheduling of evidentiary hearings at which
Plaintiffs were to be afforded an opportunity to challenge the Defendants’
decisions to detonate the huge bomb in June, 2006, the Divine Strake “test”
would have occurred at that time and downwind American populations
would now be suffering increased birth defects and cancers. The federal
Defendants could not go forward when there was an opportunity to
scrutinize their environmental findings.
The government asserted that it cancelled the Divine Strake in the
planning process, a statement which was incredible given the fact that the
government rescheduled the detonation three times during the course of
- 18 - Case: 09-15176 04/27/2009 Page: 26 of 41 ID: 6896712 DktEntry: 7
the litigation. The government would have detonated Divine Strake the first time without this intervening litigation, there was no further planning contemplated. The date had been set. Not even thirty (30) days after the announcement of the detonation, the blast was to take place. Only after these Plaintiffs raised substantive issues of lack of credible scientific inquiry by the government was the detonation cancelled, not the planning, not the consideration, the detonation itself.
There are two reasons why the Defendants cancelled their plans to detonate the 700 ton bomb very shortly after each written challenge by the
Plaintiffs. First, the District Court made clear by its prompt scheduling of evidentiary hearings and continued monitoring of the litigation by regularly scheduled status conferences that the Defendants would not be allowed to go forward without an opportunity for the Plaintiffs to prove by testimony and evidentiary hearing, the lack of environmental documentation supporting the Defendants’ decision. Second, the Plaintiffs’ pleadings, written opinions and testimony of Plaintiffs’ experts at the hearing on June
27, 2007, proved that the Defendants had, at each announcement of the detonation, falsely vouched for the safety of the huge blast, failed to adhere to basic scientific protocols and acted without substantial justification.
- 19 - Case: 09-15176 04/27/2009 Page: 27 of 41 ID: 6896712 DktEntry: 7
The District Court’s Status Conferences and Bench Stays of action6 required the Defendants to take notice of Plaintiffs’ concerns and proof and constituted Court supervision of the agency’s actions. These District Court actions prevented attempts by the Defendants to detonate the Divine Strake
on at least two separate occasions and required that the status quo be
maintained until Plaintiffs were given the opportunity to have an
evidentiary hearing and that thirty (30) days notice had to be given to the
Court and the Plaintiffs before scheduling any further tests.
In order to qualify for an award of fees and costs under EAJA, five
criteria must be satisfied: 1) the applicant must have been a "prevailing
party" in the suit against the United States; 2) the government's position
msut not have been substantially justified; 3) there cannot be any special
circumstnaces that make an award unjust; 4) any fee application must be
submitted to the court within thirty (30) days of final judgment in the
action and also be supported by an itemized statement; and, 5) meet certain
corporate qualifications not applicable in this litigation. Before the final
6 Docket No. 10, EOR 00538; Docket No 16, EOR 00538; Docket No. 29, EOR 00539; Docket No. 32, EOR 00540; Docket No. 37, EOR 00541; Docket No. 39, EOR 00541; Docket No. 45, EOR 00542; Docket No. 50, EOR 00542 - 00543; Docket No. 57, EOR 00544; and Docket No. 65, EOR 00545.
- 20 - Case: 09-15176 04/27/2009 Page: 28 of 41 ID: 6896712 DktEntry: 7
four issues can be analyzed, the threshold determination is that Plaintiffs must be considered prevailing parties.
The District Court erred in determining that the Plaintiffs were not prevailing parties. Plaintiffs are to be considered prevailing parties because they succeeded on a significant issue of the litigation, cancellation of the
Divine Strake detonation. The cancellation of Divine Strake was a direct
result of the litigation.
Plaintiffs qualify as prevailing parties because they did obtain some
relief on the merits of their claims. The Plaintiffs had pled that the
Defendants had failed to give adequate notice in order for the Plaintiffs to
comment on the environmental documentation. The Court specifically and
expressly stated that the Defendants would remain at status quo and that
the Defendants were required to give thirty days notice of the rescheduling
of any detonation. (Docket No. 39 and 45), The Plaintiffs were not required
to obtain a final judgment on the merits in order to be a prevailing party
under EAJA. This Court has previously held in Carbonell v. INS, 429 F.3d
894 (9th Cir. 2005), that it is sufficient if the Court’s action “materially
alters the legal relationship between the parties, because the defendants
were required to do something directly benefitting the plaintiffs that they
- 21 - Case: 09-15176 04/27/2009 Page: 29 of 41 ID: 6896712 DktEntry: 7
otherwise would not have had to do.”7
In 2007 a plaintiff suing the Bureau of Land Management sought an
injunction because of inadequate environmental documentation of a
proposed timber sale. 8 The BLM stipulated to a delay after the Plaintiffs
filed litigation challenging the environmental documentation. When the
District Court of Oregon announced that it would rule on a motion for
summary judgment in favor of the Plaintiffs, the BLM withdrew its decision
to go forward with the timber sale.
///
The federal Defendants herein made a motion for an emergency stay
that was granted by the District Court. That stay was the beginning of the
end of the decision by the Defendants to detonate Divine Strake, and, just
as the BLM withdrew its decision in the Oregon case, the Defendants
withdrew their decision and went back to Washington without detonating
700 pounds of explosives in the radioactive soils of the NTS.
In the Klamath case the District Court of Oregon did not enter
7 Californians for Alternatives to Toxics v. U.S. Forest Service, 2007 U.S.Dist. LEXIS 78424 (2007) citing Carbonnell at page 901)
8 Klamath Siskiyou Wildlands Center v. BLM, 522 F. Supp.2d 1302 (D. Ore. 2007)
- 22 - Case: 09-15176 04/27/2009 Page: 30 of 41 ID: 6896712 DktEntry: 7
judgment or make any findings. In Oregon Natural Desert Ass'n v.
Lohn, 522 F.Supp. 1295 (D.Ore. 2007), the Court's order was moot before it took effect. Both cases demonstrate that a Court order is not the critical factor in determining the prevailing party. Carbonnel established that a
prevailing party is one that has success in obtaining the desired relief from
the federal court regardless of whether the federal court's order addressed
the merits of the underlying case.
2. The Plaintiffs were the prevailing party because the objective they sought received judicial sanction.
Two factors assist the courts in defining a prevailing party under
EAJA. (1) Plaintiffs’ action in filing the litigation must have resulted in a
"material alteration" in the parties' legal relationship and (2) that alteration
must have been judicially sanctioned. Just as discussed in Lang and
Carbonnel. The District Court of Nevada assumed jurisdiction, had several status conferences and hearings in order to determine what the federal Defendants intended to do. The Plaintiffs ardently sought judicial intervention to stop the federal Defendants from detonating the Divine
Strake without an honest and adequate environmental document. The
District Court did intervene and required the federal Defendants to continue the status quo, meaning no detonation, and not to proceed with
- 23 - Case: 09-15176 04/27/2009 Page: 31 of 41 ID: 6896712 DktEntry: 7
any schedule of detonation until both the District Court and the Plaintiffs were given thirty (30) days notice.
In April 2006, the federal Defendants had adopted a Finding of No
Significant Impact based upon half truths, sloppy investigation and a determination that they could proceed without public comment. The filing of this litigation, the mustering of expert witnesses from across the United
States to prepare reports that challenged the faulty decisions of the federal
Defendants stopped this process because the District Court made it very clear immediately after the filing that no detonation would go forward without notice to the Plaintiffs and an opportunity to respond by the
Plaintiffs.
When the federal Defendants recognized that the Court was not going to simply dismiss this action, the Defendants made two more attempts to resolve the dispute raised by the Plaintiffs. When the Plaintiffs continued the litigation based upon the faulty process of environmental inquiry by the federal Defendants, and, in the face of a United States District Court intervening to maintain the status quo, the federal Defendants gave up their decision to detonate Divine Strake. Clearly, the Plaintiffs obtained the objective that they intended, to stop the detonation. Clearly, the Plaintiffs obtained this resolution because of filing the litigation and because the
- 24 - Case: 09-15176 04/27/2009 Page: 32 of 41 ID: 6896712 DktEntry: 7
District Court assumed jurisdiction and stayed the decision for further comment by the Plaintiffs.
The actions by the Plaintiffs fall squarely within the parameters adopted by the Ninth Circuit regarding prevailing party. Without the
District Court's intervention and maintenance of the status quo and requiring notice to the Plaintiffs, the federal Defendants would have detonated Divine Strake and contaminated the Plaintiffs and others in the
Western United States. The Plaintiffs had no power to stop the federal
Defendants without the intervention of the District Court. The District
Court demonstrated its sanction of the Plaintiffs' request by ordering the
status quo and ordering thirty (30) days notice of the rescheduling of any
detonation and monitoring the progress of the federal Defendants' decision.
The federal Defendants did not deprive the Plaintiffs of prevailing
party status by voluntarily withdrawing the decision to detonate Divine
Strake. As has been repeatedly stated, if the federal Defendants disobeyed
the law, the Plaintiffs’ only effective remedy was with the District Court.
Otherwise, the federal Defendants would be free to return to their old ways.
The case before the District Court was a steady progression of final agency
action that would have resulted in the detonation of Divine Strake had this
litigation not been filed. A determination of mootness when an agency has
- 25 - Case: 09-15176 04/27/2009 Page: 33 of 41 ID: 6896712 DktEntry: 7
attempted to act but has withdrawn its action based upon voluntary conduct is stringent. 9
The Defendants have the burden of showing that (1) subsequent
events have made it absolutely clear that the allegedly wrongful behavior
cannot reasonably be expected to recur, and (2) interim relief or events
have completely and irrevocably eradicated the effects of the alleged
violation. 10 Without the intervention of the District Court, the wrongful behavior of the federal Defendants would have recurred.
The Plaintiffs burden in a lawsuit brought to force compliance, to establish standing is to prove that, “if unchecked by litigation, the defendant’s allegedly wrongful behavior will likely occur or continue and that the threatened injury is certainly impending.”11 The District court accepted the standing of the Plaintiffs and intervened to stop the wrongful
9Friends of the Earth, Inc. et al. v. Laidlaw Environmental Services, Inc., 528 U.S. 167, 120 S.Ct. 693, 145 L.Ed. 2d 610 (2000) citing United States v. Concentrated Phosphate Export Assn., Inc. 393 U.S. 199, 203, 21 L.Ed.2d 344, 89 S.Ct. 361 (1968).
10 The Ninth Circuit has adopted the principles of Concentrated Phospate in Buono v. Norton, 371 F.3d 543, 546 (2003).
11 FOE v. Laidlaw, at page 172 citing Whitmore v. Arkansas, 495 U.S. 149, 158, 109 L.Ed. 2d 135, 110 S.Ct. 1717. The 9th Circuit adopted the same approach and cited Whitmore favorably in Salmon River Concerned Citizens et al v. California Coalition for Alternatives to Pesticides, 32 F.3d 1346 (1994).
- 26 - Case: 09-15176 04/27/2009 Page: 34 of 41 ID: 6896712 DktEntry: 7
behavior of the federal Defendants.
Simply put, because of the federal Defendants’ unreasonable justifications for the detonation of the Divine Strake bomb, their patent disregard for the potential health effects on the downwind public, and their disdain for public participation in reaching an informed decision required by NEPA, the Plaintiffs have standing and the District Court had jurisdiction and exercised it to keep the federal Defendants before the
District Court until the federal Defendants finally withdrew their decision.
The Plaintiffs’ pleadings, written opinions and testimony of Plaintiffs’ experts at the hearing on June 27, 2007, proved that the Defendants had, at each announcement of the detonation, falsely vouched for the safety of the huge blast, failed to adhere to basic scientific protocols and acted without substantial justification.12 Because the District Court erred in declaring that the Plaintiffs were not prevailing parties, the lack of substantial justification of the federal Defendants’ position was not revealed by the District Court’s order. The Plaintiffs have accomplished a bulwark of
12 U.S. v. Hallmark Construction Co., 200 F.3d 1076, 1080 (7th Cir. 2000) The 7th Circuit stated that substantial justification is determined by requiring that the government show that its position was grounded in “(1) a reasonable basis in truth for the facts alleged; (2) a reasonable basis in law for the theory propounded; and (3) a reasonable connection between the facts alleged and the legal theory advanced.” At page 1080.
- 27 - Case: 09-15176 04/27/2009 Page: 35 of 41 ID: 6896712 DktEntry: 7
protection that will not be repeated when the federal Defendants again run amok if the Plaintiffs cannot recover their fees and costs for protecting the
Western United States from indiscriminate detonations at the Nevada Test
Site where contaminated radioactive dirt will remain for the next 20,000 years.
3. The Plaintiffs are entitled to attorneys’ fees and costs because they are substantially prevailing parties under NEPA, the Clean
Water Act, the Clean Air Act, and the Endangered Species Act because the Government had no substantial justification for its position.
As stated above, all of these allegations were made in the Complaint.
The ready intervention by the District Court in response to the litigation by
the Plaintiffs resulted in the withdrawal of the final decision of the federal
Defendants to detonate Divine Strake. The award of attorneys’ fees is
within the discretion of the Court. This decision should be reversed
because of an incorrect legal determination by the District Court that the
Plaintiffs were not prevailing parties, when, in fact, they were.
This request for attorneys’ fees and costs should be granted because
the Plaintiffs are prevailing parties. The federal Defendants had no
substantial justification for their violation of the environmental laws as pled
- 28 - Case: 09-15176 04/27/2009 Page: 36 of 41 ID: 6896712 DktEntry: 7
by the Plaintiffs and substantial justification is one of the considerations of prevailing party status. This Court has already looked behind a voluntary withdrawal by the agency, . . .” EAJA’s standards are best served by
considering the likely reason behind the voluntary (action) in question.”13
The reason for such an analysis is that the “clearly stated objective of the
EAJA is to eliminate financial disincentives for those who would defendant against unjustified governmental action and thereby to deter the unreasonable exercise of Governmental authority.” 14
No clearer reason for the provisions of EAJA exists than the unjustified governmental action contemplated by the federal Defendants in this action. The vulnerability of the downwinders to the discharge of radioactive contamination from the 10,000 foot mushroom cloud contemplated by these federal Defendants was the very unreasonable exercise of governmental authority without proper public comment and review of adequate and truthful environmental documentation was what
EAJA was enacted to deter. This is why the District Court’s failure to analyze the lack of substantial justification of the federal Defendants when
13 Li v. Keisler, 505 F.3d 913, 919 (9th Cir. 2007)
14 Id. At page 918-919.
- 29 - Case: 09-15176 04/27/2009 Page: 37 of 41 ID: 6896712 DktEntry: 7
determining whether the Plaintiffs were prevailing parties was in error.
VI.
Conclusion
The District Court’s Status Conferences and Bench Stays of action required the Defendants to take notice of Plaintiffs’ concerns and proof and constituted Court supervision of the agencies’ actions and sanction of the
Plaintiffs’ request for stay. These District Court actions prevented attempts
by the Defendants to detonate the Divine Strake on at least two separate
occasions.
The parallel of this situation to the circumstances that gave rise to
RECA are a reminder to the courts, and should be to the government as well, that segments of the American population are at risk if radioactive
contaminated soils are made airborne. The danger threatened by the twice-
scheduled Divine Strake extends to the entire United States.
The District Court time and again arrested the agencies’ attempts to
proceed with the test in violation of NEPA. The Plaintiffs achieved their
objective that the federal Defendants withdraw their decision and this
occurred because of the litigation and the intervention of the District Court.
The Plaintiffs should be determined the prevailing parties and awarded their attorneys’ fees and costs because the federal Defendants made no
- 30 - Case: 09-15176 04/27/2009 Page: 38 of 41 ID: 6896712 DktEntry: 7
///
///
///
///
/// attempt to provide any justification for their blatant and careless disregard
of the provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act.
DATED this 27th day of April, 2009.
HAGER & HEARNE
BY:/s/ TREVA J. HEARNE , ESQ. TREVA J. HEARNE, ESQ. SBN: 4450 245 E. Liberty St., Ste. 110 Reno, NV 89501 Tele: (775) 329-5800 Attorneys for Appellants
- 31 - Case: 09-15176 04/27/2009 Page: 39 of 41 ID: 6896712 DktEntry: 7
VII.
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE
I certify that pursuant to Fed. R. App. P 32(a)(7)( C) and the Ninth
Circuit Rules 32-1, the attached opening brief is:
1. Proportionately spaced with a typeface of 14 points or more, in
Georgia font, generated in the WordPerfect 12 word processing
software, and contains approximately 7122 words and 881 lines.
DATED this 27th day of April, 2009.
HAGER & HEARNE
BY: /s/ Treva J. Hearne , Esq. TREVA J. HEARNE, ESQ. Attorney for the Appellants
- 32 - Case: 09-15176 04/27/2009 Page: 40 of 41 ID: 6896712 DktEntry: 7
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
Pursuant to FRCP 5(b), I certify that I am an employee of the law offices of HAGER & HEARNE, 245 E. Liberty Street, Ste. 110, Reno, NV 89501, and that on this date, I deposited in the U.S. Mail, with first class postage fully affixed, the foregoing document(s), described as follows: APPELLANT’S OPENING BRIEF, on the party(s) set forth below by:
_X_ Placing an original or true copy thereof in a sealed envelope placed for collection and mailing in the United States Mail, at Reno, Nevada, postage prepaid, following ordinary business practices.
_X_ E-filing pursuant to 9th Circuit Court of Appeals Electronic Filing Procedures.
Addressed as follows:
Michael Thomas Gray, Esq Chief Appellate Counsel U.S. Attorney’s Office P.O. Box 23795 L’Enfante Plaza Station Washington D.C., 20026-3795
Blaine T. Welsh, Esq. U.S. Attorney’s Office 333 Las Vegas Blvd., So. Suite 5000 Las Vegas, NV 89101
DATED this 27th_ day of April , 2009.
By:/s/ Mercedese Witty MERCEDESE WITTY Legal Assistant
- 33 - Case: 09-15176 04/27/2009 Page: 41 of 41 ID: 6896712 DktEntry: 7
STATEMEN T OF ALL KNOWN RELATED CASES AND APPEALS CERTIFICATION REQUIRED BY BAP RULE 8010(a)-1(c)
Docket No. 09-15176
Names of Appellants: WINNEMUCCA INDIAN COLONY; SHARON WASSON; THOMAS WASSON; JUDY ROJO; ELVERINE CASTRO; PETER LITSER; STEPHEN ERICKSON; KIM TOWNSEND; VIRGINIA SANCHEZ; JACK MALOTTE; ARVILLA MASCARENAS; and PATRICIA AXELROD.
The undersigned certifies that there are no known related cases and appeals.
DATED this 27th day of April, 2009.
HAGER & HEARNE
BY:/s/ TREVA J. HEARNE , ESQ. TREVA J. HEARNE, ESQ. SBN: 4450 245 E. Liberty St., Ste. 110 Reno, NV 89501 Tele: (775) 329-5800 Attorneys for Appellants
- 34 -