Coleman, et al v. Schwarzenegger, et al
Filing
6564
THREE-JUDGE COURT ORDER signed by District Judge Jon S. Tigar on 04/01/2020 DENYING Motion to Intervene [ECF No. 6542]. (Andrews, P)
1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTS
2
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
3
AND THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT COMPOSED OF THREE JUDGES
5
PURSUANT TO SECTION 2284, TITLE 28 UNITED STATES CODE
6
7
RALPH COLEMAN, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
8
Case No. 2:90-cv-0520 KJM DB P
THREE-JUDGE COURT
v.
9
10
GAVIN NEWSOM, et al.,
11
Defendants.
12
MARCIANO PLATA, et al.,
13
Plaintiff,
14
v.
15
GAVIN NEWSOM, et al.,
16
Case No. 01-cv-01351-JST
THREE-JUDGE COURT
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO
INTERVENE BY VALLEY FEVER
PRISONERS
Defendants.
17
18
Now before the Court is the motion to intervene brought by certain prisoners1 with Valley
19
Fever. ECF No. 3229/6542.2 The Court invited Plaintiffs and Defendants to submit responses to
20
the motion by 12:00 noon on April 1, 2020. ECF No. 3247/6556 at 1–2. No response was
21
received. The Court denies the motion for the reasons set forth below.
22
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24 provides for both intervention as of right and
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
The precise identity of the intervenors is unknown. No class or sub-class has been certified, and
the attorney who filed the motion states that he “does not purport to speak for every inmate
afflicted with valley fever.” ECF No. 3229/6542 at 5. Because the Court will deny the motion for
independent reasons, it does not address this issue further.
2
All filings in this Three-Judge Court are included in the individual docket sheets of both Plata v.
Newsom, No. 01-cv-01351-JST (N.D. Cal.), and Coleman v. Newsom, No. 2:90-cv-0520 KJM DB
P (E.D. Cal.). The Court cites to the docket number of Plata first, then Coleman.
1
permissive intervention.3 Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(a)–(b). Intervention as of right is denied because the
2
proposed intervenors have not shown that their interests will not be “adequately represented by
3
existing parties.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(a)(2); Arakaki v. Cayetano, 324 F.3d 1078, 1083 (9th Cir.
4
2003) (listing “four requirements [that] must be satisfied to support a right to intervene,” including
5
that “the applicant’s interest must not be adequately represented by existing parties”). All the
6
proposed intervenors are members of at least the plaintiff class in Plata because they receive
7
medical care within the state prison system, and they present no reason why Plata class counsel
8
will not adequately represent their interests in connection with the current motion.
The Court also exercises its “broad discretion” to deny permissive intervention. Perry v.
9
10
Schwarzenegger, 630 F.3d 898, 905 (9th Cir. 2011). In particular, the Court concludes that
11
proposed intervenors’ interests will be adequately represented by Plaintiffs’ counsel, and the
12
involvement of additional counsel will not “significantly contribute to full development of the
13
underlying factual issues in the suit and to the just and equitable adjudication of the legal
14
questions presented.” Spangler v. Pasadena Bd. of Educ., 552 F.2d 1326, 1329 (9th Cir. 1977).
IT IS SO ORDERED.4
15
16
Dated: April 1, 2020
On behalf of the Court:
17
_______________________________________
JON S. TIGAR
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
3
The proposed intervenors fail to discuss Rule 24 or any of the relevant standards for intervention.
28
4
Judge Tigar issues this order on behalf of the Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2284(b)(3).
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?