Center for Biological Diversity et al v. Bureau of Land Management et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA
CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY, et
al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT,
et al.,
Defendants.
and
CONOCOPHILLIPS ALASKA, INC.,
et al.,
Intervenor-Defendants.
Case No. 3:23-cv-00061-SLG
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO EXPEDITE AND DENYING PLAINTIFFS’
MOTION FOR INJUNCTION PENDING APPEAL
Before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Rule 62(d) Motion for Injunction Pending
Appeal (Docket 84) and Plaintiffs’ Motion for Expedited Consideration of their
Motion for Injunction Pending Appeal (Docket 85). 	Upon due consideration, the
motion to expedite at Docket 85 is GRANTED.
Case 3:23-cv-00061-SLG Document 87 Filed 04/05/23 Page 1 of 2

Case No. 3:23-cv-00061-SLG, Ctr. for Biological Diversity, et al. v. BLM, et al.
Order Granting Motion to Expedite and Denying Plaintiffs’ Motion for Injunction Pending Appeal
Page 2 of 2
“The standard for evaluating an injunction pending appeal is similar to that
employed by district courts in deciding whether to grant a preliminary injunction.”1
The Court has reviewed Plaintiffs’ most recent filing and disagrees with its analysis.
Accordingly, the Court DENIES the motion for an injunction pending appeal at
Docket 84 for the reasons provided in the Court’s Order Regarding Motions for
Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction (Docket 82).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this 5th day of April, 2023 at Anchorage, Alaska.
/s/ Sharon L. Gleason
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
1 Feldman v. Arizona Sec’y of State’s Office, 843 F.3d 366, 367 (9th Cir. 2016) (first citing Lopez
v. Heckler, 713 F.2d 1432, 1435 (9th Cir. 1983); and then citing Southeast Alaska Conservation
Council v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng’rs, 472 F.3d 1097, 1100 (9th Cir. 2006)).
Case 3:23-cv-00061-SLG Document 87 Filed 04/05/23 Page 2 of 2