El Pueblo Para El Aire Y Agua v. Lisa Jackson

Dissenting.

I respectfully dissent from denial of declaratory relief. We have said that a district court abuses its discretion when it makes a decision that is illogical. See United States v. Hinkson, 585 F.3d 1247, 1263 (9th Cir.2009). To my thinking it is illogical for a district court to conclude that declaratory relief would “serve no useful purpose” when a request for such relief is presented to a court following a delay of more than 17 years by a federal agency in reaching a resolution of an important federal law question facing the EPA. Would it not be a useful purpose for the district court to tell EPA that it should not sit for more than 17 years on a Title VI complaint about allegedly discriminatory placement of hazardous waste sites in a community that is primarily inhabited by the disadvantaged? The poor and powerless who inhabit the areas where the sites were placed do not have a lot of ability to marshal political forces in their favor, and I would, have thought that part of the reasoning of Congress in Title VI was to give a boost to their voice via the federal judiciary. Yet here relief that could hold promise for principled and timely decision on predictable…

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JUN 18 2015

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

No. 13-15633

PADRES HACIA UNA VIDA MEJOR,

an unincorporated association, D.C. No. 1:11-cv-01094-AWI-

BAM

Plaintiff,

EL PUEBLO PARA EL AIRE Y AGUA MEMORANDUM**

LIMPIO, an unincorporated association,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

GINA MCCARTHY,* in her official capacity as Administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; and

U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California Anthony W. Ishii, Senior District Judge, Presiding

* Gina McCarthy is substituted for her predecessor, Lisa Jackson, as Administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 43(c). -2- Argued and Submitted June 10, 2015 San Francisco, California

Before: SILVERMAN, GOULD, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.

Plaintiff El Pueblo Para El Aire y Agua Limpio appeals from the district

court’s dismissal of its action against the…

MEMORANDUM **

Plaintiff El Pueblo Para El Aire y Agua .Limpio appeals from the district court’s dismissal of its action against the EPA pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 706 (1) of the Administrative Procedures Act to compel agency action unlawfully withheld or unreasonably delayed. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we AFFIRM.

In its complaint, El Pueblo along with co-Plaintiff Padres Hacia Una Vida Mejor 1 brought claims against the EPA seeking injunctive and declaratory relief, which were dismissed by the district court. On appeal, El Pueblo only challenges the district court’s dismissal of its claim for declaratory relief. El Pueblo does not challenge the district court’s dismissal of its claims for injunctive relief.

El Pueblo argues that the district court erred in dismissing its claim for declaratory relief as moot. However, a review of the district court’s order shows that the district court did not dismiss El Pueblo’s claim for declaratory relief on mootness grounds. Rather, the district court dismissed El Pueblo’s claim for declaratory relief on the grounds that “there is no useful purpose that would be served by granting Plaintiffs’ requested declaratory…