Western Watersheds Project v. Feldhausen ( 2021 )

1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Western Watersheds Project, et al., No. CV-20-00149-TUC-JGZ 10 Plaintiffs, ORDER 11 v. 12 Anthony Scott Feldhausen, et al., 13 Defendants. 14 15 Pending before the Court is Hereford Natural Resources Conservation District’s 16 (District) Motion for Leave to File an Amicus Brief in Support of the Bureau of Land 17 Management. (Doc. 27.) Defendants filed a response indicating they take no position on 18 the motion. (Doc. 29.) Plaintiffs filed an Opposition to the motion. (Doc. 30.) For the 19 reasons that follow, the Court will deny the motion. 20 District courts have discretion to permit or deny the filing of an amicus brief. See 21 Dible v. City of Chandler, 2004 WL 7336848, *1 (D. Ariz. Dec. 23, 2004); see also Mobile 22 Cnty. Water, Sewer & Fire Prot. Auth., Inc. v. Mobile Area Water & Sewer Sys., Inc., 567 23 F. Supp. 2d 1342, 1344 (S.D. Ala. 2008) (“District courts have inherent authority to appoint 24 or deny amici which is derived from Rule 29 of the Federal Rules of Appellate 25 Procedure.”). An amicus curiae’s role is to assist in a case of general public interest, 26 supplement the efforts of counsel, and draw the court’s attention to law that has escaped 27 consideration. MillerWohl Co., Inc. v. Comm’r of Labor and Indus., 694 F.2d 203, 204 (9th 28 Cir. 1982). 1 In light of the role of an amicus curiae and the posture of this case, the Court will deny the motion. In the proposed amicus brief, the District disputes allegations in Plaintiffs’ 3 || complaint and discusses the positive impacts of BLM’s challenged decision. However, the Court cannot ascertain whether the District’s contentions supplement the efforts of counsel 5 || or draw the Court’s attention to law that has escaped consideration, as the administrative 6 || record had not been finalized and the parties have not filed dispositive motions at this time. The District may refile its motion after BLM has filed its initial dispositive brief (motion 8 || or response) in this case, so long as the motion complies with applicable laws and rules, 9|| including Rule 29, Fed. R. App. P. Accordingly, 10 IT IS ORDERED that the Motion for Leave to File an Amicus Brief in Support of 11 || the Bureau of Land Management (Doc. 27) is DENIED. 12 Dated this 29th day of November, 2021. 13 14 □ Is pod Soya 16 ; Honorable Jennify ve Zfpps United States District Judge 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 _2-