Headwaters Inc., an Oregon Non-Profit Corporation Forest Conservation Council v. U.S. Forest Service

382 F.3d 1025 HEADWATERS INC., an Oregon non-profit corporation; Forest Conservation Council, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. U.S. FOREST SERVICE, Defendant-Appellee. No. 01-35898. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted July 10, 2003. Filed September 8, 2004. COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED Lori J. Cooper, Williams, OR, for the appellants. Todd S. Aagaard, Attorney, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for the appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Oregon; Michael R. Hogan, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. CV-01-03056-HO. Before: GOODWIN, HUG, and BERZON, Circuit Judges. Opinion by Judge HUG; Dissent by Judge BERZON. HUG, Circuit Judge: 1 This case presents a problem peculiar to public law cases. The plaintiffs in this case are suing to vindicate a public right that has already been litigated by other environmental groups. The plaintiffs contest the validity of sales of timber made by the Forest Service. Those particular sales, however, have already been challenged by other environmental groups using the same arguments that the plaintiffs now present. We agree with the district court that the current…

Opinion by Judge HUG; Dissent by Judge BERZON.

This case presents a problem peculiar to public law cases. The plaintiffs in this case are suing to vindicate a public right that has already been litigated by other environmental groups. The plaintiffs contest the validity of sales of timber made by the Forest Service. Those particular sales, however, have already been challenged by other environmental groups using the same arguments that the plaintiffs now present. We agree with the district court that the current plaintiffs interests were virtually represented by the previous groups, so we affirm the district court’s dismissal of the case on res judicata grounds.

Headwaters, Inc. and the Forest Conservation Council (collectively “Headwaters”) filed suit against the United States Forest Service seeking declaratory and in-junctive relief for alleged violations of the National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 4321-4370 , the National Forest Management Act (“NFMA”), 16 U.S.C. §§ 1600-1687 , and the Administrative Procedures Acts (“APA”), 5 U.S.C. §§ 701-706 in the Rogue River National Forest. The district court dismissed the complaint as barred by res judicata.…

dissenting:

We have in this nation a “ ‘deep-rooted historic tradition that everyone should have his own day in court,’ ” and presume, consequently, that “ ‘[a] judgment or decree among parties to a lawsuit resolves issues as among them, but it does not conclude the rights of strangers to those proceedings.’ ” Richards v. Jefferson County, 517 U.S. 793, 798 , 116 S.Ct. 1761 , 135 L.Ed.2d 76 (1996) (citations omitted; alteration in original). Yet, the court decides today that two environmental organizations who have never litigated the validity of several timber sales are precluded from doing so because counsel for other organizations, a year earlier, signed a dismissal with prejudice of a similar challenge.

*1033 The court so decides although the record is entirely silent as to: (1) any relationship between the organizations in the earlier suit and the organizations — or the members of the organizations — who are plaintiffs in this one; (2) the reason for the earlier dismissal with prejudice, including whether the original plaintiffs had standing to litigate the case they sought to bring; (3) whether the plaintiffs in the earlier suit obtained any relief at all, although it…