Dunn et al v. Thomas et al

Filing 3824

PHASE 2A ORDER DENYING MOTION TO INTERVENE: it is ORDERED that Troy Connell's 3633 motion for leave to intervene is denied; further ORDERED that his 3655 request for judicial notice is denied; The court finds that the request is moot; Even if granted, intervention would still be unwarranted. Signed by Honorable Judge Myron H. Thompson on 10/17/2022. (amf, )

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, NORTHERN DIVISION
EDWARD BRAGGS, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
JOHN HAMM, in his
official capacity as
Commissioner of
the Alabama Department of
Corrections, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CIVIL ACTION NO.
2:14cv601-MHT
(WO)

PHASE 2A ORDER DENYING MOTION TO INTERVENE
Troy Connell, an inmate in the custody of the Alabama
Department of Corrections (ADOC), seeks to intervene in
the

so-called

“Phase

2A”

part

of

this

longstanding

litigation challenging the adequacy of mental-health care
for ADOC inmates.

For reasons that follow, Connell’s

motion to intervene will be denied.
State

prisoners

and

the

State’s

designated

protection and advocacy program filed this class-action
lawsuit

against

the

Interim

Associate

ADOC

Commissioner

Commissioner

of

and

Health

the

ADOC

Services,

claiming that ADOC failed to provide minimally adequate
mental-health care to its inmates in violation of the
Eighth Amendment.

The court agreed in 2017.

See Braggs

v. Dunn, 257 F. Supp. 3d 1171 (M.D. Ala. 2017) (Thompson,
J.).

After years of court proceedings, imposition of

partial

remedies,

established,

in

and

2021,

negotiations,

a

Phase

2A

the

omnibus

court
remedial

framework for redressing the constitutional violations
identified by the court. See Braggs v. Dunn, 562 F. Supp.
3d 1178 (M.D. Ala. 2021) (Thompson, J).

The monitoring

phase of this case is now ongoing as both parties work
to bring the ADOC in compliance with the 2021 courtordered relief.
Connell

is

an

inmate

at

the

St.

Clair

County

Correctional Facility, which is operated by the ADOC.
See Compl. in Intervention (Doc. 3633-1) at 4.
identifies

himself

as

a

member

of

this

He

litigation’s

certified Phase 2A class (“a class of all persons with a
serious mental-health disorder or illness who are ...
subject to defendants’ mental-health care policies and
2

practices in ADOC facilities”).

See Braggs v. Dunn, 317

F.R.D.

2016)

634,

673

(M.D.

Ala.

(Thompson,

J.)

(certifying the proposed plaintiff class).
With his motion for leave to intervene, he contends
that, in the future, the ADOC will use unrestricted
appropriations from the Alabama Legislature to lease new,
as-yet unconstructed prisons, leaving the ADOC unable to
“comply

with

this

Court’s

correctional-staffing levels.
(Doc.

3633-1)

at

8.

He

injunction”

to

improve

Compl. in Intervention
cites

“present

economic

prospects,” without providing any further clarification,
to argue that the Alabama Legislature’s budget revenues
will

fall

short

of

what

is

expected,

hindering

the

State’s ability to comply with the injunctions this court
has issued over the course of litigation in this case.
Id.
He seeks a declaratory judgment from this court that
he and other class members have a legally cognizable
security interest in the State Legislature’s budgetary
expenditure to the ADOC.

He further seeks a declaration
3

that this requested security interest is prior in right
to

any

security

interests

claimed

by

the

Alabama

Corrections Finance Authority, Regions Bank, or any other
legal entity.

See Compl. in Intervention (Doc. 3633-1)

at 9.
Connell seeks to intervene both as a matter of right
and as a matter of discretion, pursuant to Rule 24 of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Rule 24(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
provides two pathways for intervention of right.1 Subpart
(a)(1) to the rule provides an unconditional right by a
federal statute.

Connell does not make the argument that

any federal statute gives him the right to intervene in
this case.

See Compl. in Intervention (Doc. 3633-1).

1. Rule 24(a) provides:
“(a) Intervention of Right. On timely motion,
the court must permit anyone to intervene who:
(1) is given an unconditional right to
intervene by a federal statute; or
(2) claims an interest relating to the
property or transaction that is the
subject of the action, and is so
4

Subpart (a)(2) of Rule 24 provides a second pathway
for intervention of right: where the person moving for
intervention “claims an interest relating to the property
or transaction that is the subject of the action, and is
so

situated

that

disposing

of

the

action

may

as

a

practical matter impair or impede the movant’s ability
to

protect

its

interest,

unless

existing

adequately protect that interest.”

parties

Fed. R. Civ. P.

24(a)(2).
The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals has long held
that

intervention

as

a

right

under

subpart

(a)(2)

requires a third party to demonstrate four factors: “that
(1) his application to intervene is timely; (2) he has
an interest relating to the property or transaction which
is the subject of the action; (3) he is so situated that
disposition of the action, as a practical matter, may

situated that disposing of the action
may as a practical matter impair or
impede the movant's ability to protect
its interest, unless existing parties
adequately represent that interest.”
5

impede or impair his ability to protect that interest;
and

(4)

his

inadequately

interest
by

the

in

the

existing

suit

parties

is

represented

to

the

suit.”

Chiles v. Thornburgh, 865 F.2d 1197, 1213 (11th Cir.
1989).

A party seeking such intervention “bear[s] the

burden of proof to establish all four [Chiles factors]
for intervention as a matter of right.”

Burke v. Ocwen

Financial Group, 833 Fed. App’x 288, 291 (11th Cir. 2020)
(emphasis added).
The court begins its analysis with the second Chiles
factor,

which

deals

with

the

potential

intervenor’s

interest in the property or transaction at the center of
the

action.

“A

legally

protectable

interest

something more than an economic interest.’”

‘is

Mt. Hawley

Ins. Co. v. Sandy Lake Properties, Inc., 425 F.3d 1308,
1311 (11th Cir. 2005) (quoting United States v. South
Fla. Water Mgmt. Dist., 922 F.2d 704, 710 (11th Cir.
1991)).

Rather,

recognizes
applicant.”

as

it

is

belonging

one
to

Id.
6

which
or

“substantive

being

owned

by

law
the

In his motion, Connell asserts that the Phase 2A
class’s

interests

in

ongoing

injunction,

the

ADOC’s

combined

compliance

with

his

with

prediction

the
of

future ADOC budgetary shortages, is enough to create a
legally

cognizable

legislative

security

budget

interest

allocation.

Intervention (Doc. 3633-1) at 8.
identify
support

any
his

applicable
position

See

he

has

the

ADOC’s

Compl.

in

At no point does he

substantive

that

in

a

Alabama
direct

law

to

security

interest in state funds necessary to fulfill the terms
of this court’s 2021 omnibus remedial order.

“Interests

that are contingent upon some future events and which are
‘purely a matter of speculation’ are not ‘the kind of
protectable

interest ... necessary

intervention as of right.’”

to

support

Laube v. Campbell, 215

F.R.D. 655, 657 (M.D. Ala. 2003) (Thompson, J.) (quoting
ManaSota-88, Inc. v. Tidwell, 896 F.2d. 1318, 1322 (11th
Cir. 1990)).
Here, Connell’s asserted right is purely speculative
and based on economic projections that have not yet
7

occurred.

He has not stated an interest sufficient for

mandatory intervention under Rule 24(a)(2).

See Laube,

215 F.R.D. at 657 (denying a motion to intervene on the
ground

that

the

stated

interest

depended

“on

the

occurrence of a long sequence of events before it could
become colorable.”).
Because Connell fails to meet the second Chiles
factor, by virtue of the fact that he does not identify
a

legally

cognizable

interest,

the

court

need

not

determine whether his motion to intervene satisfies the
remaining Chiles factors.

He cannot intervene as a

matter of right.
Subpart (b) of Rule 24 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure gives the court discretion to grant permissive
intervention in response to timely motions filed by third
parties who are in either of two groups.
24(b)(1).2

Fed. R. Civ. P.

The first category of possible intervenors

2. Rule 24(b) provides in part:
“(b) Permissive Intervention.
8

consists

of

those

who

are

given

intervention right by federal statute.

a

conditional

Id. at (b)(1)(A).

As stated, Connell does not identify any such statue in
his motion to intervene.
(Doc.

3633-1).

The

See Compl. in Intervention

second

category

of

potential

third-party intervenors consists of those who have “a
claim or defense that shares with the main action a common
question of law or fact.”

Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(b)(1)(B).

Even when third parties are able to make such a showing,
the court may exercise its discretion, and must consider

(1) In General. On timely motion, the
court may permit anyone to intervene
who:
(A) is given a conditional right
intervene by a federal statute; or

to

(B) has a claim or defense that shares
with the main action a common question
of law or fact.
***
(3) Delay or Prejudice.
In exercising its
discretion, the court must consider whether the
intervention will unduly delay or prejudice the
adjudication of the original parties’ rights.”
9

whether intervention would “unduly delay or prejudice the
adjudication of the original parties’ rights.”

Id. at

(b)(3).
As written, Connell interprets the 2021 remedial
order to include granting class members a degree of
financial control over ADOC’s budgetary expenditures, and
he contends that the State’s anticipated actions would
prejudice
rights.

the

ongoing

adjudication

of

the

parties’

Whether this interpretation is accurate or not

and whether Connell has “a claim or defense that shares
with the main action a common question of law or fact,”
Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(b)(1)(B), the court sees no need for
more plaintiffs to enter this litigation to choose which
contentions to present and how to present them, that is,
to make the strategic decisions as to how this case should
proceed.

The current plaintiffs--who consist of not only

inmates, but also the State’s designated protection and
advocacy

program--and

their

counsel

have

adequately

represented the plaintiff class, and continue to do so.
The intervention of more plaintiffs would unnecessarily
10

further complicate this already complicated case.

See

id. 24(b)(3) (“In exercising its discretion, the court
must consider whether the intervention will unduly delay
or prejudice the adjudication of the original parties’
rights.”)
The court, therefore, in its discretion will deny
Connell’s request for permissive intervention under Rule
24(b).

* * *
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that Troy Connell’s motion
for leave to intervene (Doc. 3633) is denied.
It is further ORDERED that his request for judicial
notice (Doc. 3655) is denied.
request is moot.

The court finds that the

Even if granted, intervention would

still be unwarranted.
DONE, this the 17th day of October, 2022.
/s/ Myron H. Thompson
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

11