Summary
The United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida dismissed the plaintiffs’ challenges to the Army Corps of Engineers’ extension and modification of a Clean Water Act § 404 wetlands permit. The court held that the claims under the Clean Water Act, NEPA, ESA, and APA were moot because the permit had expired, all authorized filling activity had concluded, and no permit conditions remained in effect. The case was dismissed without prejudice and closed.
Holdings
- The plaintiffs' Clean Water Act, APA, and ESA claims were moot because the challenged § 404 permit had expired, no permit conditions remained in effect, no further filling could occur under that permit, and the court could grant no effective relief.
- The completed filling of wetlands did not preserve a live controversy because plaintiffs had not sought preliminary relief to halt the fills and did not request relief requiring removal or remediation of the existing fills.
- The plaintiffs' NEPA claims for declaratory and injunctive relief were moot because the challenged permit had expired and the authorized project activity had been completed.
- The exception did not apply because plaintiffs failed to show that the challenged action was inherently too short to receive judicial review or that they faced a reasonable expectation of being subjected to the same action again.
Questions Presented
- Whether expiration of the challenged Clean Water Act § 404 permit mooted plaintiffs' Clean Water Act, Administrative Procedure Act, and Endangered Species Act claims seeking declaratory and injunctive relief.
- Whether expiration of the permit and completion of the authorized filling mooted plaintiffs' NEPA claims for declaratory and injunctive relief.
- Whether the capable-of-repetition-yet-evading-review exception preserved jurisdiction.
- Whether the court could grant relief concerning previously completed wetland fills or remand the matter to the Corps after the permit had expired.
Disposition
dismissed
Cases Cited (31)
- Arizonans for Official English v. Arizona, 520 U.S. 43, 45, 68 n.23 (1997)(followed)
- Murphy v. Hunt, 455 U.S. 478, 481 (1982)(followed)
- Sheely v. MRI Radiology Network, P.A., 505 F.3d 1173, 1183 (11th Cir. 2007)(followed)
- Al Najjar v. Ashcroft, 273 F.3d 1330, 1336 (11th Cir. 2001)(followed)
- Florida Association of Rehabilitation Facilities v. Florida Department of Health & Rehabilitation Services, 225 F.3d 1208, 1217 (11th Cir. 2000)(followed)
- Weinstein v. Bradford, 423 U.S. 147, 148-49 (1975)(followed)
- Wallace v. Bureau of Land Management, 169 Fed. App'x 521, 523-24 (10th Cir. 2006)(followed)
- Alaska Center for the Environment v. United States Forest Service, 189 F.3d 851, 855 (9th Cir. 1999)(followed)
- Northwest Resource Information Center v. National Marine Fisheries Service, 56 F.3d 1060, 1069-70 (9th Cir. 1995)(followed)
- Kentuckians for the Commonwealth, Inc. v. Pocahontas Development Corp., 269 F. Supp. 2d 710, 713, 715-16 (S.D.W. Va. 2003)(followed)
Showing top 10 of 31.
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…