Plata et al v. Schwarzenegger et al
ORDER DENYING 3229 MOTION TO INTERVENE BY VALLEY FEVER PRISONERS. Signed by Judge Jon S. Tigar, on behalf of the three-judge court, on April 1, 2020. (jstlc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/1/2020)
Case 4:01-cv-01351-JST Document 3253 Filed 04/01/20 Page 1 of 2
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTS
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
AND THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT COMPOSED OF THREE JUDGES
PURSUANT TO SECTION 2284, TITLE 28 UNITED STATES CODE
RALPH COLEMAN, et al.,
Case No. 2:90-cv-0520 KJM DB P
GAVIN NEWSOM, et al.,
MARCIANO PLATA, et al.,
GAVIN NEWSOM, et al.,
Case No. 01-cv-01351-JST
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO
INTERVENE BY VALLEY FEVER
Now before the Court is the motion to intervene brought by certain prisoners1 with Valley
Fever. ECF No. 3229/6542.2 The Court invited Plaintiffs and Defendants to submit responses to
the motion by 12:00 noon on April 1, 2020. ECF No. 3247/6556 at 1–2. No response was
received. The Court denies the motion for the reasons set forth below.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24 provides for both intervention as of right and
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.
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.
Case 4:01-cv-01351-JST Document 3253 Filed 04/01/20 Page 2 of 2
permissive intervention.3 Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(a)–(b). Intervention as of right is denied because the
proposed intervenors have not shown that their interests will not be “adequately represented by
existing parties.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(a)(2); Arakaki v. Cayetano, 324 F.3d 1078, 1083 (9th Cir.
2003) (listing “four requirements [that] must be satisfied to support a right to intervene,” including
that “the applicant’s interest must not be adequately represented by existing parties”). All the
proposed intervenors are members of at least the plaintiff class in Plata because they receive
medical care within the state prison system, and they present no reason why Plata class counsel
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.
Schwarzenegger, 630 F.3d 898, 905 (9th Cir. 2011). In particular, the Court concludes that
proposed intervenors’ interests will be adequately represented by Plaintiffs’ counsel, and the
involvement of additional counsel will not “significantly contribute to full development of the
underlying factual issues in the suit and to the just and equitable adjudication of the legal
questions presented.” Spangler v. Pasadena Bd. of Educ., 552 F.2d 1326, 1329 (9th Cir. 1977).
IT IS SO ORDERED.4
Dated: April 1, 2020
On behalf of the Court:
JON S. TIGAR
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
The proposed intervenors fail to discuss Rule 24 or any of the relevant standards for intervention.
Judge Tigar issues this order on behalf of the Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2284(b)(3).
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?