Habeas Corpus Resource Center et al v. United States Department of Justice et al

Filing 37

ORDER DENYING 29 MOTION TO INTERVENE AND GRANTING MOTION TO FILE AMICUS BRIEF. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 11/22/2013. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/22/2013)

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3
4
5
6

HABEAS CORPUS RESOURCE CENTER and
THE OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC
DEFENDER FOR THE DISTRICT OF
ARIZONA,
Plaintiffs,

7
8

v.

10

Defendants.

9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

ORDER DENYING
MOTION TO
INTERVENE AND
GRANTING MOTION TO
FILE AMICUS BRIEF
(DOCKET NO. 29)

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
JUSTICE and ERIC H. HOLDER, IN
HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS UNITED
STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL,

11

No. C 13-4517 CW

12

________________________________/

13
14

Marc Klaas seeks to intervene or in the alternative file a

15

brief as amicus curiae.

16

DENIES the motion to intervene and GRANTS the motion to file a

17

brief as amicus curiae.

After reviewing the papers, the Court

18

BACKGROUND

19

On September 30, 2013, Plaintiffs Habeas Corpus Resource

20

Center (HCRC) and the Office of the Federal Public Defender for

21

the District of Arizona (FDO-AZ) brought an action for injunctive

22

relief to set aside the September 23, 2013 Final Rule regarding

23

Certification Process for State Capital Counsel System, 78 Fed.

24

Reg. 58,160.

25

States Department of Justice (DOJ) and United States Attorney

26

General Eric H. Holder on September 23, 2013 and was due to become

27

effective on October 23, 2013.

28

The Final Rule was issued by Defendants United

On October 18th, 2013, this Court

1

granted Plaintiffs’ application for a temporary restraining order

2

and order to show cause why a preliminary injunction should not

3

issue.

4

or in the alternative to file a brief as amicus curiae on the

5

basis that he is the father of a murder victim in a potential

6

federal habeas corpus case.

7

an opposition to the motion to intervene.

On November 4, 2013, Mr. Klaas filed a motion to intervene

8
9

On November 6, 2013, Plaintiffs filed

LEGAL STANDARD
Mr. Klaas seeks to intervene pursuant to Federal Rule of

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

Civil Procedure 24(a).

11

24(a), a party has a right to intervene if: (1) the applicant has

12

made a timely motion to intervene; (2) the applicant has a

13

significant protectable interest relating to the property or

14

transaction that is the subject of the action; (3) the applicant

15

is situated such that the disposition of the action may impair or

16

impede the applicant's ability to protect that interest; and (4)

17

the applicant's interest is not adequately represented by existing

18

parties.

19

Forest Serv., 630 F.3d 1173, 1177 (9th Cir. 2011).

20

intervention as of right, a prospective intervenor must satisfy

21

each Rule 24(a) requirement.

22

Citizens v. Wilson, 131 F.3d 1297, 1302 (9th Cir. 1997).

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

See Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(a)(2); Wilderness Soc. v. U.S.

See League of United Latin Am.

DISCUSSION

23
24

To merit

The Court denies the motion because Mr. Klaas has not

25

satisfied the substantive requirements of Rule 24(a)(2) for

26

intervention as of right.

27

Under Rule 24(a) Mr. Klaas is required to demonstrate a

28

“requisite legally protectable interest -- that is, a statutory,
2

1

contract, or constitutional interest in this litigation.”

2

Corp. v. ASM Lithography B.V., 222 F.R.D. 647, 650 (N.D. Cal.

3

2004).

4

§ 3771 and, accordingly, has a right to proceedings free from

5

unreasonable delay in a habeas corpus case.

6

§ 3771(a)(7).

7

Nikon

Mr. Klaas argues that he is a crime victim under 18 U.S.C.

18 U.S.C.

Title 18 U.S.C. § 3771 is inapplicable to Mr. Klaas’s motion.

8

The statute confers rights on victims in a “Federal habeas corpus

9

proceeding arising out of a State conviction.”

18 U.S.C.

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

§ 3771(2)(A).

As Mr. Klaas notes in his motion, no federal habeas

11

corpus petition has yet been filed in the case.

12

does not fall within the statute’s purview.

13

U.S.C. § 3771(d)(3) prescribes specific mechanisms for enforcing a

14

crime victim’s right to proceedings free from unreasonable delay.

15

See 18 U.S.C. § 3771(d)(3) (providing that a crime victim may

16

assert rights prescribed in the statute in a district court; if

17

denied relief, the victim may petition the court of appeals for a

18

writ of mandamus.).

19

remedies enumerated in its text, it does not serve as a basis for

20

Mr. Klaas to invoke a free-standing legally protectable interest

21

that satisfies Rule 24(a).

22

Klaas’s motion to intervene.

Mr. Klaas thus

Even if he did, 18

Because 18 U.S.C. § 3771 is limited to the

Accordingly, this Court denies Mr.

23

The Court will permit Mr. Klaas to file an amicus brief.

24

“There are no strict prerequisites that must be established prior

25

to qualifying for amicus status[.]”

26

790 F. Supp. 987, 997 (E.D. Cal. 1991) (citations omitted).

27

“District courts frequently welcome amicus briefs from non-parties

28

concerning legal issues that have potential ramifications beyond
3

In re Roxford Foods Litig.,

1

the parties directly involved[.]”

NGV Gaming, Ltd. v. Upstream

2

Point Molate, LLC, 355 F. Supp. 2d 1061, 1067 (N.D. Cal. 2005)

3

(internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

4

Court will consider Mr. Klaas’s brief, which was submitted on

5

November 4, 2013.

6

the amicus brief within seven days of this order, with a brief of

7

no more than ten pages.

(Docket No. 29-3.).

Accordingly, the

Each side may respond to

8
9

IT IS SO ORDERED.

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12

Dated: 11/22/2013
CLAUDIA WILKEN
United States District Judge

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4