Puna Speaks v. Hodel

 562 F. Supp. 82 (D. Haw. 1983)

Plaintiff-Appellee:

Plaintiff’s Attorney:
  1. Puna Speaks
  1. Jack F. Schweigert, Honolulu, HI

Defendant‑Appellant:

Defendant’s Attorney:
  1. Donald P. Hodel

1.  Carol Muranaka, Washington, D.C.

Court:

United States District Court for the District of Hawai‘i

Opinion by:

District Judge Fong

Other Jurists:

Court Below:

·         ·         N/A

  • N/A

Key laws involved:
  • Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, Rule 8 (injunction pending appeal)
  • Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 65 (Preliminary Injunction)
  • National Environmental Policy Act. 54 USC § 4331 et. seq.

Summary:

1)      Plaintiff environmental association sought reconsideration of the District Court's December 17, 1982 order in Puna Speaks v. Edwards, 554 F. Supp. 117 (D. Haw. 1982), which denied Plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction. 

2)      Plaintiff also sought a mandatory injunction pursuant to the Fed. R. App. P. 8, to enjoin the activities of three geothermal drilling and production projects in the Puna District of the island of Hawai‘i pending a decision on the preliminary injunction by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

3)      After weighing the evidence and considering the arguments, the Court made the following findings of fact:

a)      The Plaintiff contended that the DOE is required to make a formal Environmental Impact Statement because they failed to consider several factors enumerated by the Council on Environmental Quality and because of an incorrect interpretation of the word “significantly.”  40 C.F.R. § 1508.27 (1981).

b)      Defendants took adequate steps to ensure that the geothermal project was within NEPA guidelines.

c)      Plaintiff did not show that the DOE’s decision to forego an Environmental Impact Statement was unreasonable.

d)      No new evidence was presented by the Plaintiff to challenge the Court’s previous ruling denying preliminary injunction.

4)      The Court ruled that the factors enumerated by the Council on Environmental Quality do not require a filing of an Environmental Impact Statement by the Defendant DOE

5)      The Court concluded that the Defendant DOE acted properly and considered all the relevant environmental factors with regard to the geothermal project.

6)      The Court recognized that an application for injunction pending appeal incurs the same burden on the Plaintiff as a motion for preliminary injunction:

a)      Plaintiff must show irreparable harm and;

b)      The likelihood of success of the action pending appeal.

7)      The Court found that Plaintiff failed to produce any new evidence of irreparable harm or success on the merits.

8)      The Court refused the relief prayed for and DENIED Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration and an Injunction Pending Appeal.