Home
Looking into the future the Pelican feeding its young from a self-induced wound in its own breast (as depicted, mysteriously, on the state flag of Louisiana) is accepted as an appropriate symbol of both self-sacrifice and rebirth. Through his selfless efforts, man is raised from the slavery of ignorance to the condition of freedom conferred by wisdom. Given the current state of affairs in Louisiana, one hopes that the understanding of the Pelican as a symbol shall point the way towards a new consciousness of ourselves as a whole, and lead us to face our futures with strength, grace, wisdom and faith, to learn from our mistakes and carry our successes and zest for living to future generations.

Memorandom & Order- Judge Blake West's decision rubber-stamping illegal destruction of wetlands, dismissed for laches.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

CIVIL ACTION
NO. 75-3155 SECTION “H”

SAVE OUR WETLANDS, INC.

Versus

EDWARD H. LEVI, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

COL. EARLY RUSH, COMMANDER, NEW ORLEANS DISTRICT, U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS

WEBB HART, PRESIDENT OF ST. TAMMANY PARISH POLICE JURY

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Since the time this Motion was presented to the Court on March 17, 1976, counsel for defendant Leisure, Inc. has submitted a Supplemental Memo and Affidavits which were received in the mail by plaintiff’s counsel on March 29, 1976.

This matter was brought before the Court on a motion to dismiss on the ground of res judicata and collateral estoppel. The motion was taken under advisement by The Honorable R. Blake West. The parties having agreed to submit the matter without the necessity of further oral argument, and the Court having considered the pleadings and memoranda of counsel, IT IS ORDERED that the motion to dismiss should bed and it is hereby granted for the following reasons:
REASONS
Plaintiff originally filed an action, docketed in this Court as Civil Action No. 74-2919, against, among others, all of the defendants in the present case. The earlier action, which concerned development of the area known as “Eden Isles”, was dismissed for laches based upon the recommendation of a Special Master appointed to hear the matter, and the ruling was affirmed on appeal. Save Our Wetlands, Inc. (S.O.W.L), et al v. United States Army Corps of Engineers, et al, 549 F.2d 1021 (C.5 1977).

The present action was filed during the pendency of that appeal. Defendants filed this motion to dismiss, alleging that the suit is barred by res judicata because the parties, the subject matter and the cause of action in this suit are substantially indentical to the earlier suit. Brown v. Compton, 466 F.2d 1384 (C.5 1972).

The complaint in this action is concerned solely with the establishment of the St. Tammany Parish Drainage District No. 2 and the construction of levees and pumping of that area. Plaintiff seeks an injunction restraining the St. Tammany Parish Police Jury and the United States Army Corps of Engineers from maintaining levees in and draining of the eastern portion of Eden Isles. Plaintiff alleges that such draining and maintenance of levees is “future work” which was excluded from the ruling on laches in the first suit. No complaint is made with request to development of the area in question since no such development is contemplated other than maintenance of levees in connection with Drainage District No. 2.

Thus, the sole issue with which the court is concerned is whether the maintenance of the levees and the alleged resultant drainage complained of in this suit was part of the subject matter litigated in the earlier suit. There is no question that is was. The entire complaint in this suit consists substantially of portions of paragraphs 49 through 68 of the complaint in the first suit. The prayer in the complaint seeks precisely the same relief as was sought in paragraphs 6 through 9 of the prayer in C.A. 74-2919. The special master’s report and recommendation and supplemental report discusses the subject matter extensively (see particularly conclusion of law #3, First Supplemental Special Master’s Report and Recommendation). Finally, the Court of Appeal specially faulted plaintiffs for delaying longest with respect to the conversion of the area to dry land by the construction and maintenance of levees. Save Our Wetlands v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 549 F.2d 1021, 1026-27, (C.5 1977). The Court of Appeal also referred to the fact that work involving “the maintenance of levees” had been performed on the eastern portion of the levee in question. Save Our Wetlands v. Army Corps of Engineers, Supra at 1026.

Accordingly, the parties, subject matter and cause of action are identical to issues litigated in the earlier suit and this action is barred by res judicata. Aeroject-General Corp. v. Askew, 511 F.2d 710 (C.5 1975)

New Orleans, Louisiana, July 17, 1978.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

FAIR USE NOTICE: This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. Save Our Wetlands Inc.(SOWL) has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is Save Our Wetlands Inc.(SOWL) endorsed or sponsored by the originator. For more information go to:www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.