Babbitt

Ft. Funston Dog Walkers v. Babbitt

Good Law
96 F. Supp. 2d 1021·2000 WL 553638·2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9308
United States District Court, Northern District of CaliforniaApril 26, 2000C 00-00877 WHACalifornia7,763 words

Opinion

Opinion

Alsup, J.

FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW REGARDING PROBABILITY OF SUCCESS AND IRREPARABLE INJURY; REQUEST FOR SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING CONCERNING REMEDY; ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ OBJECTION TO EXTRA-RECORD MATERIAL

INTRODUCTION

On motion for preliminary injunction, this order finds that plaintiffs have shown a probability that the National Park Service violated its own regulations requiring notice and opportunity for public comment before implementing a closure of certain park lands, finds that plaintiffs will suffer irreparable injury, and requests further briefing as to a provisional remedy.

STATEMENT

1. The Closure Regulation of the National Park Service

The National Park Service’s regulations require notice-and-comment rulemaking procedures before a closure of a park area that is of a “highly controversial nature” or that will result in “a significant alteration in the public use pattern of the park area”:

36 C.F.R. 1.5(b). Plaintiffs contend that the National Park Service violated this regulation by closing a portion of Fort Funston without first publishing the proposed closure in the Federal Register and allowing comment.

2. Fort Funston

Fort Funston is a multi-use…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.