NO.: CV-S-97-327-HDM (RLH)
WESTERN SHOSHONE NATIONAL COUNCIL
by its Chief, Raymond D. Yowell, and
CHIEF RAYMOND D. YOWELL as Representative of
the Class of Shoshone Persons,
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA;
Department of the Interior, Secretary BRUCE BABBITT,
JULIE FAULKNER, ROBERT LAIDLAW;
Bureau of Land Management, ANN J. MORGAN, HELEN HANKINS; and
ORO NEVADA RESOURCES, INC.; its parents,
affiliates, subsidiaries, successors, assigns, etc.,
1. On February 4, 1998, the Federal Defendants filed a Motion To Dismiss this case, accompanied by a supporting memorandum and served by mail on Plaintiffs.
2. On February 13, 1998, Defendant Oro Nevada filed a statement of Joinder in the federal motion, accompanied by a supporting memorandum and served by mail on Plaintiffs.
3. Plaintiffs respectfully move this Court to extend the time for filing their Opposition to the joint Motion to Dismiss to April 24, 1998, for the reasons set forth below.
4. The orderly prosecution of this case has been interwoven with and disrupted by ex parte Bureau of Land Management (BLM) actions against Plaintiffs, requiring Plaintiffs to respond in extra-judicial settings, as set forth in the following chronology:
a. On February 6, 1998, Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Preliminary Injunction, requesting relief from ongoing ex parte contacts by Bureau of Land Management (BLM) field officials threatening extra-judicial action on matters within the scope of this litigation
b. On February 10, 1998, the Court assigned this case to Magistrate Judge Roger L. Hunt "for all further proceedings including the motion for preliminary injunction."
c. On February 19, 1998, the BLM Elko Field Office mailed an "Unauthorized Use Notice and Order to Remove" to Plaintiff Western Shoshone National Council, alleging various statutory violations and threatening impoundment of livestock. The Field Office allowed 5 days from receipt of the notice to appear and contest the "notice and order."
d. On February 23, 1998, Plaintiffs appeared at the BLM Elko Field Office and presented evidence and information in opposition to the BLM Notice and Order. Plaintiffs also informed in writing BLM officials there present that it considers issuance of the Elko Field Office Notice and Order to constitute harassment and evasion of orderly judicial process.
e. On February 23, 1998, the Federal Defendants filed a memorandum in opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction.
f. On February 25, 1998, the BLM Elko Field Office mailed a letter to individual Western Shoshone ranchers who are included among the persons represented by Plaintiffs, indicating that the BLM had contacted the United States Department of Justice for possible prosecution of the ranchers for violations of various agency regulations and requesting a meeting on March 4, 1998, to discuss issues which are the subject-matter of this case.
g. On March 2, 1998, Plaintiffs responded in writing to the BLM letter and meeting proposal. Plaintiffs were informed by telephone before the proposed March 4 meeting that BLM officials would be unable to meet on that date.
5. As of the date of this filing, Plaintiffs continue to be apprehensive of further ex parte action by BLM field office personnel. Plaintiffs are maintaining a state of readiness to respond to ex parte contacts if necessary, but are hopeful the Court will grant relief from this necessity by issuance of a preliminary injunction in the form requested by Plaintiffs in their prior motion.
6. Plaintiffs do not have access to a large staff to handle their ordinary business, let alone the extra-ordinary demands of litigation. Staff and personal resources have been carefully assigned to assure Plaintiffs' orderly and timely involvement with this case.
7. Federal Defendants' ex parte conduct has forced Plaintiffs to represent their interests simultaneously in the judicial process and in extra-judicial settings, in the face of imminently threatened agency action. This has prevented Plaintiffs from attending to much of their regular business and deprived them of their ability to prepare and file their Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss within the time normally allotted for the same.
8. Plaintiffs' believe an extension of time to April 24, 1998, would be sufficient for filing their Opposition. This is Plaintiffs' first request for an extension.
9. Defendants will not be penalized by an extension of time to April 24, 1998, for Plaintiffs to respond to the Motion to Dismiss.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs move this Court for an Order extending the time for filing Plaintiffs' opposition to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss to April 24, 1998.
Dated: March , l998
Raymond D. Yowell, Chief
Allen Moss, Sub-Chief
Virginia Sanchez, Secretary of State & Treasurer
Western Shoshone National Council
Indian Springs, NV 89018