Plata et al v. Schwarzenegger et al

Filing 3253

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

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.

Case 4:01-cv-01351-JST Document 3253 Filed 04/01/20 Page 2 of 2

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