60 F. Supp. 3d 14
D.D.C.2014Background
- PETA sued USDA under the APA for failing to implement bird-specific AWA regulations and to enforce general AWA provisions against birds.
- Congress amended the AWA in 2002 to include birds, but USDA has not promulgated bird-specific regulations nor broadly enforced the general regulations against birds.
- The court previously dismissed both enforcement and regulation claims, holding actions were discretionary or unreviewable under Chaney Crowley framework.
- PETA moved for reconsideration and potential amendment to plead more fully about USDA’s non-enforcement policy.
- Court denied reconsideration and rejected amendment as untimely after final judgment.
- The decision rests on Crowley and Chaney doctrines governing review of agency enforcement decisions and non-enforcement policies.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Can Crowley exception support review of non-enforcement policy | PETA argues Crowley permits general non-enforcement policy review | USDA asserts no concrete policy statement exists to review | Denied; no concrete expression identified |
| Was heightened review inappropriate at motion to dismiss | PETA claims need only plausible allegations | Court applied proper Chaney-based standard | Denied; standard properly applied |
| Should amendment be allowed after denial of reconsideration | PETA seeks leave to amend based on new guide | Rule 59(e) denial precludes amendment | Denied; amendment not permitted after reconsideration denial |
Key Cases Cited
- Crowley Caribbean Transp. v. Pena, 37 F.3d 671 (D.C.Cir.1994) (review of general policy not-enforcement under Crowley)
- Heckler v. Chaney, 470 U.S. 821 (U.S. 1985) (presumptive unreviewability of agency enforcement decisions)
- Adams v. Richardson, 480 F.2d 1159 (D.C.Cir.1973) (non-enforcement policy not required to be articulated to permit review)
- Sparrow v. United Air Lines, Inc., 216 F.3d 1111 (D.C.Cir.2000) (treatment of complaint’s factual allegations as true in motion to dismiss)
- Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (plausibility standard for pleading)
- Iqbal v. Ashcroft, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) ( plausibility required, not just legal conclusions)