Summary
holding “two state agencies [were] immune from suit because they are state entities, not individual state officers.”
Summary of this case from Thunderfoot v. United StatesOpinion
Nos. 01-15159, 01-15216, 01-15321.
Argued and Submitted April 9, 2002.
Filed September 24, 2002. Amended December 9, 2002.
Laurens H. Silver, California Environmental Law Project, Mill Valley, CA; John McCaull, National Audubon Society, Sacramento, CA, for the plaintiffs-appellees National Audubon Society, et al.
Katherine Barton, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for appellee United States Department of Agriculture.
Clifford T. Lee, California Attorney General, San Francisco, CA, for defendants-appellees-appellants Gray Davis, et al.
Richard D. Gann George Hunlock, Marvin Morrow Hunlock, San Diego, CA; John L. Staley, Poway, CA, for intervenors-appellants National Trappers Association, et al.
Eric R. Glitzenstein Jonathan R. Lovvorn, Meyer Glitzenstein, Washington, DC; Francis M. Goldsberry II, Goldsberry, Freeman Swanson, Sacramento, CA, for defendants-intervenors-appellants-appellees American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, et al.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California; Charles A. Legge, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. CV-98-04610-CAL.
Before GOODWIN, THOMAS and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
ORDER
This court's opinion, filed September 24, 2002 [ 307 F.3d 835], is hereby amended as follows:
1. Slip Op., page 14932: Delete Footnote 7
2. Slip Op., page 14930: Replace the first two sentences of the second full paragraph with:
"The sponsors argue against preemption on an additional ground. They argue that, even if Proposition 4 does not contain an exception for the protection of endangered species, it is not preempted by the ESA."
With the opinion as amended, the panel has voted unanimously to deny the petition for rehearing. Judges Thomas and W. Fletcher have voted to deny the petition for rehearing en banc, and Judge Goodwin so recommends.
The full court has been advised of the petition for rehearing en banc and no judge of the court has requested a vote on whether to rehear the matter en banc. Fed.R.App.P. 35.
The petition for rehearing and the petition for rehearing en banc, filed November 8, 2002, are DENIED.