Centralia Prison Opposition Group, Inc. v. Department of Justice

No. 78-3062 (S.D. Ill. August 1, 1978)

The court denies a request for injunctive relief against construction of a prison pending preparation of an environmental impact statement pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits of their claim that the proposed construction project is a major federal action for purposes of NEPA. Although federal funds will clearly be used to a significant degree in the operation of the prison, no showing has been made that there has been any significant degree of federal involvement in the design, construction, or site acquisition for this particular facility. The ultimate objective of NEPA is to influence the decision making of federal officials, not state officials supported in some way through federal funding. Plaintiffs' claim will likely be rejected on the merits, and preliminary injunctive relief is therefore inappropriate.

Counsel for Plaintiffs
Daniel Walker
Walker, Gende, Hatcher, Doyle & Giamanco
One W. Old State Capitol Plaza, Springfield IL 62701
(217) 525-2730

James M. Wexstten
P.O. Box 882, Mt. Vernon IL 62864
(618) 244-5737

Counsel for Defendants
Gerald D. Fines, U.S. Attorney; John Germeraad, Ass't U.S. Attorney
P.O. Box 375, Springfield IL 62705
(217) 525-4450

David C. Cannon, Jr.
Land and Natural Resources Division
Department of Justice, Washington DC 20530
(202) 739-2137

Harold Feldman, Ass't Attorney General
500 S. Second St., Springfield IL 62706
(217) 782-1090

[8 ELR 20674]

Ackerman, J.:

Plaintiffs' complaint seeks declaratory and injunctive relief against the construction by the State of Illinois of a prison near Centralia, Clinton County, Illinois. The major thrust of plaintiffs' complaint is that the prison to be constructed near Centralia is a joint state-federal project and as such, the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. § 4321 et seq., requires the filing of an environmental impact statement (EIS). The matter is now here on plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction to require defendants to comply with NEPA and submit an EIS prior to any further action on the Centralia Prison project.

In order to be entitled to the extraordinary relief of preliminary injunction, it is well established in this circuit that four criteria must be met. Those four criteria require that plaintiff establish: the lack of an adequate remedy at law; a substantial likelihood of success on the merits; immediate and irreparable injury; and that the balance of hardships to be suffered by movant and to be suffered by the public in general, favors the movant. Washington v. Walker, 529 F.2d 1062 (7th Cir. 1976); Banks v. Trainor, 525 F.2d 837 (7th Cir. 1975), and Burns v. Paddock, 503 F.2d 18 (7th Cir. 1974). The analysis here, must center on the requirement of a showing of a substantial likelihood of success on the merits.

In turn, this element turns on whether plaintiffs have shown the necessary federal involvement in construction of this state prison project. NEPA requires each federal agency, before taking "major federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment" to prepare a "detailed statement" analyzing, among other things, "the environmental impact of the proposed action." 42 U.S.C. § 4332(2)(C). "Actions" include projects supported in whole or in part by federal funding. 40 [8 ELR 20675] C.F.R. § 1500.5(a)(2), City of Highland Park v. Train, 519 F.2d 681, 694 [5 ELR 20408] (7th Cir. 1975).

Through the stipulations and affidavits in file, plaintiffs have been unable to establish that any federal funds will be involved with the construction of the prison site. I think it is fair to say, however, that plaintiffs have established that there is significant federal funding in the state prison system as a whole and that inevitably federal funds will be involved in the operation of certain projects at the prison site.

The question presented to me then, is whether this inevitable federal involvement is sufficient to require the filing of an environmental impact statement prior to construction. Plaintiffs have sought to convince me that since there is a large volume of federal money in the operations of the State Department of Corrections, any construction project by the Department of Corrections is necessarily a state-federal partnership and that the federal NEPA applies. They have failed.

The purpose of a NEPA is, in part, to coordinate the disparity in environmental policies between different federal agencies. Portland Cement Ass'n v. Ruckelshaus, 486 F.2d 375 [3 ELR 20642] (D.C. Cir. 1973), cert. denied, 417 U.S. 921 (1974). The purpose of the environmental impact statement is to provide information for those actually charged with making the decision whether or not to go ahead with the project. See Kleppe v. Sierra Club, 427 U.S. 390, 409-10 [6 ELR 20532] (1976), and Lathan v. Brinegar, 506 F.2d 677 [4 ELR 20802] (9th Cir. 1974).

After review of the extensive briefs filed by the parties and the voluminous stipulations, I can find no decision to be made by a federal agency involving the planning or construction of the Illinois Prison at Centralia.

Plaintiffs have shown no federal involvement in the design, construction, or site acquisition of the Centralia Prison. There has been no showing that Illinois sought, received, or ever will seek federal approval for any state action in the matter here, at issue, i.e., the location, design, or construction of the Centralia Prison facility. Cf., Scottsdale Mall v. State of Indiana, 549 F.2d 484, 489 [7 ELR 20247] (7th Cir. 1977).

Therefore, it would appear to be that an environmental impact statement would serve no federal purpose since there is no federal decision to be made.

This determination having been made on a preliminary basis, I find that plaintiffs failed to establish the required showing of likelihood of success on the merits. Therefore, plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction must be denied.