September Term, 2002 00cv02560 Filed On: February 4, 2003 TULARE COUNTY v. George W. Bush, in His Official Capacity As President of the United States of America

Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the
Federal Reporter or U.S.App.D.C. Reports. Users are requested to notify
the Clerk of any formal errors in order that corrections may be made
before the bound volumes go to press.
United States Court of Appeals
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
–————
No. 01-5376 September Term, 2002
00cv02560
Filed On: February 4, 2003
TULARE COUNTY, ET AL.,
APPELLANTS
v.
GEORGE W. B USH, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ET AL.,
APPELLEES
NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL, ET AL.,
INTERVENORS
–————
BEFORE: Ginsburg, Chief Judge, and Edwards, Sentelle,
Henderson, Randolph, Rogers, Tatel, Garland, Circuit
Judges, and Williams, Senior Circuit Judge
O R D E R
Upon consideration of the petition for rehearing en banc,
and the absence of a request by any member of the court for
a vote, it is

-- 1 of 3 --

2
ORDERED that the petition be denied.*
Per Curiam
FOR THE COURT:
Mark J. Langer, Clerk
BY:
Deputy Clerk
* A separate statement of the panel is attached.

-- 2 of 3 --

1
Statement of the Panel
PER CURIAM: Contrary to Tulare County’s argument, the
court examined the complaint against a no more rigorous
standard of pleading than that of Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). The
court affirmed the district court’s dismissal, for example, of
Count III of the complaint because it contained no factual
allegations that any part of the Monument lacked scientific or
historical value. The allegation that Sequoia groves comprise
only six percent of the Monument might well have been
sufficient if the President had identified only Sequoia groves
for protection, but he did not; the Proclamation covered
natural resources present throughout the Monument area. It
was therefore incumbent upon Tulare County to allege that
some part of the Monument did not, in fact, contain natural
resources that the President sought to protect. That, and
nothing more, is what led the court to conclude that the
complaint did not identify improperly designated lands ‘‘with
sufficient particularity.’’

-- 3 of 3 --