Filing 101

Memorandum in opposition to re 93 MOTION for Joinder MOTION to Intervene Filed by David Andrew Christenson filed by KEITH B. ALEXANDER, ERIC H. HOLDER, JR, NATIONAL SECURITY AGENCY, BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA, II, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Dearinger, Bryan)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA _______________________________________ ) ) LARRY KLAYMAN, et al., ) ) Civil Action No. Plaintiffs, ) 1:13-cv-00851-RJL v. ) ) BARACK OBAMA, President of the ) United States, et al., ) ) Defendants. _______________________________________) ) ) LARRY KLAYMAN, et al., ) ) Plaintiffs, ) Civil Action No. v. ) 1:13-cv-00881-RJL ) BARACK OBAMA, President of the ) United States, et al., ) ) Defendants. _______________________________________) ) ) LARRY KLAYMAN, et al., ) ) Plaintiffs, ) Civil Action No. v. ) 1:14-cv-0092-RJL ) BARACK OBAMA, President of the ) United States, et al., ) ) Defendants. _______________________________________) GOVERNMENT DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO INTERVENE FILED BY DAVID ANDREW CHRISTENSON The Government Defendants1 hereby respond to David Andrew Christenson’s “Motion to Join and or Motion to Intervene and or Complaint” (13-851, ECF No. 95; 13-881, ECF. No. 69; 14-092, ECF No. 4 (“Christenson Mot.”)). Mr. Christenson filed this motion without making any showing as to why he is entitled to intervene under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a) or (b). The Government Defendants therefore do not believe that the motion merits serious consideration by this Court and oppose the relief sought. Mr. Christenson’s motion consists of allegations of government misconduct involving a Coast Guard commander in Louisiana as well as the claim that Mr. Christenson has been unlawfully prosecuted and surveilled by the United States Department of Justice in order to “bypass the Federal Judiciary[,] steal his evidence, and to silence him thereby depriving him of his 1st Amendment Privilege.” Christenson Mot. at 1. Rule 24(a) and (b) “both require that a motion to intervene be timely filed, and the Court considers ‘time elapsed since the inception of the suit, the purpose for which intervention is sought, the need for intervention as a means of preserving the applicant’s rights, and the probability of prejudice to those already parties in the case.’” Kifafi v. Hilton Hotel Ret. Plan, 1 With regard to Klayman I and II (Case Nos. 13-cv-851, 13-cv-881), the “Government Defendants” are defendants Barack Obama, President of the United States, Eric Holder, Attorney General of the United States, and General Keith B. Alexander, Director of the National Security Agency (NSA), insofar as they are sued in their official capacities, together with defendants NSA and the United States Department of Justice. The “Government Defendants” in Klayman III (Case No. 14-cv-092), in addition to the aforementioned defendants, include James Clapper, Director of National Intelligence (DNI), John O. Brennan, Director of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), and James Comey, Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), insofar as they are sued in their official capacities, and defendants CIA and FBI. In conjunction with this opposition, the undersigned is appearing on behalf of all the Government Defendants, but for the sole and limited purpose of opposing Mr. Christenson’s motion to intervene. This appearance is neither a waiver of service nor a concession that the Plaintiffs have properly effected personal service of process on any of the Government Defendants or individual capacity defendants named in Klayman III. These defendants therefore reserve their right to file a motion to dismiss under Rule 12, Rule 56, or any other applicable rule, and to raise any and all available defenses, if and when they are served and properly before the Court. 1 2004 WL 3619156, at *6 (D.D.C. Sept. 27, 2004) (quoting Smoke v. Norton, 252 F.3d 468, 471 (D.C. Cir. 2001)).2 Permissive intervention under Rule 24(b)(1)(A)—the more likely putative basis for the instant motion—may apply to movants 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)(A). The aforementioned factors weigh heavily against permitting Mr. Christenson to intervene in this case. He waited nine months to file his motion, does not articulate a single reason why intervention is appropriate, and alleges harm unconnected to any activity being challenged in the instant cases. Relatedly, because his allegations do not share a “common question of law or fact” with the claims raised in these cases and, in any event, are not supported by any independent jurisdictional basis, he is not eligible for permissive intervention under Rule 24(b)(1)(A). See EEOC v. Nat’l Children’s Ctr., Inc., 146 F.3d 1042, 1046 (D.C. Cir. 1998). Finally, Mr. Christenson’s motion is not accompanied by a pleading setting forth the claims for which intervention is sought, as required by Rule 24(c). Rather, his attached “pleading” references but does not attach an “original complaint” in an unrelated civil rights case pending in the Eastern District of Louisiana, see Christenson Mot. at 2-3, appends prior amicus briefs purportedly filed in the United States Supreme Court in 2012, see id. at 5-28, and includes miscellaneous motions to intervene in what appears to be unrelated criminal matters before the Fifth Circuit, id. at 26-37, copies of a restraining order entered against Mr. Christenson, see id. at 41-44, an order setting bail conditions related to that restraining order, id. at 45-46, and summaries of books purportedly published by Mr. Christenson. See id. at 38-41. For the above-stated reasons, Mr. Christenson’s motion to intervene should be denied. 2 Mr. Christenson has not identified any statute that provides him an unconditional or conditional right to intervene in this action, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(a)(1), (b)(1)(A), and counsel for the Government Defendants are aware of none. 2 Dated: March 24, 2014 Respectfully submitted, STUART F. DELERY Assistant Attorney General JOSEPH H. HUNT Director, Federal Programs Branch ANTHONY J. COPPOLINO Deputy Branch Director /s/ Bryan Dearinger JAMES J. GILLIGAN Special Litigation Counsel MARCIA BERMAN Senior Trial Counsel BRYAN DEARINGER Trial Attorney RODNEY PATTON Trial Attorney U.S Department of Justice Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch 20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., Room 7334 Washington, D.C. 20001 Phone: (202) 514-3489 Fax: (202) 616-8202 Bryan.Dearinger@usdoj.gov Counsel for the Government Defendants 3 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on this 24th day of March, 2014, I did cause true and correct copies of the foregoing instrument, Government Defendants’ Opposition to Motion to Intervene Filed by David Andrew Christenson, to be electronically filed using the CM/ECF system for the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and served by U.S. mail on the following person: DAVID ANDREW CHRISTENSON P.O. Box 9063 Miramar Beach, FL 32550 /s/ Bryan Dearinger BRYAN DEARINGER Trial Attorney U.S Department of Justice Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch

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?