ISC v. Rittenhouse, CV-98-0493-S-MHW (D.Idaho 1999) ("Ritten-house I "). While there is a similarity of legal theories in the two cases, Rittenhouse I concerned different timber sales. Ritten-house I challenged the Roberts Gulch, Prince John, Paradise, Myrtle Creek, and Mack Pine timber sales, which are located in different areas of the Forest than the sales at issue here. With the exception of the Prince John sale, the sales in Ritten-house I were located in entirely different management areas of the Forest. The Lightning Ridge and Long Prong areas present their own unique factual issues relating to the management of old growth habitat. Hence, the claims presented in Rittenhouse I are not identical to the claims presented here. See Hiser v. Franklin, 94 F.3d 1287, 1292 (9th Cir. 1996) (<HOLDING>). 2. Administrative Exhaustion The
holding that the issue of waiver requires an analysis of the specific facts in each case holding that claim preclusion did not apply even though the legal theory at issue in that case was addressed in a previous case because the case at issue was based on a different set of operative facts holding previous case when no one challenged the issue could not be precedent on the issue holding that previous legal ruling granting certiorari was law of the case in subsequent proceedings holding a prior case was not precedent on an issue when the issue was not contested