the APA did not apply to the United States Probation Service. The court held that the exclusion for the Probation Service was “warranted not by the functions it performs ... but-by its status as an auxiliary of the courts, which, unlike agencies of the executive branch, are specifically excluded” from the APA. Pickus v. United States Bd. of Parole, 507 F.2d 1107, 1112 (D.C.Cir.1974). Accordingly, the court will dismiss the United. States Probation Office from this action. However, plaintiffs Complaint also specifically includes claims against not just the Probation Office but also the United States Fish & Wildlife Service. There is no question but that the Fish. & Wildlife Service is governed by the APA. See, e.g., Bennett v. Spear, 520 U.S. 154, 117 S.Ct. 1154, 137 L.Ed.2d 281 (1997) (<HOLDING>). The plaintiff will be granted a period to
holding school districts had standing to bring claims against the state asserting that school financing system had become unconstitutional holding that the debtor lacked standing to bring a claim against the internal revenue service for the improper assessment of a tax deficiency because the cause of action was the property of the estate and had not been abandoned to the debtor holding that plaintiff had standing to bring a rico conspiracy claim despite his inability to bring a substantive rico claim holding plaintiffs had standing to bring apa claims against the fish and wildlife service holding that plaintiffs lacked standing to bring securities claims relating to funds that plaintiffs did not own