PRISON LEGAL NEWS v MAYO, et al

Filing 173

ORDER DENYING 170 MOTION TO INTERVENE. Signed by JUDGE MARK E WALKER on 12/4/2013. (dlt)**Copy mailed to Daniel J Levitan**.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TALLAHASSEE DIVISION
PRISON LEGAL NEWS,
Plaintiff,
v.

CASE NO. 4:12-cv-239-MW/CAS

MICHAEL D. CREWS, in his
official capacity as Secretary of the
Florida Department of Corrections,
Defendant.
_________________________________/
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO INTERVENE
This Court has considered, without hearing, Daniel J. Levitan’s motion to
intervene and be joined as a plaintiff party, ECF No. 170, filed on November 21,
2013. For a number of reasons, including but not limited to those identified below,
the motion is denied.
With regard to intervention of right under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
24(a), Mr. Levitan has expressed a concern, but has not shown in any way, that
Prison Legal News cannot adequately represent his interest in this case. See, e.g.,
Angel Flight of Ga., Inc. v. Angel Flight Am., Inc., 272 F. App’x 817, 819 (11th
Cir. 2008) (“In order for a party to intervene as a matter of right under Rule 24(a),
it must establish . . . the party’s interest is represented inadequately by the existing
parties to the suit.”); Georgia v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng’rs, 302 F.3d 1242, 1250
1

(11th Cir. 2002) (“The proposed intervenor [as of right] must show . . . that
existing parties in the suit cannot adequately protect [its] interest.”). To the
contrary, Prison Legal News’s interests are aligned with those of Mr. Levitan, and
it argues the same violations of First, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights
which are argued by Mr. Levitan. Prison Legal News is well-represented by
counsel, and this Court further granted leave and has received an amicus brief from
outside counsel on these constitutional issues. Therefore, Mr. Levitan has no right
to intervene.
With regard to permissive intervention under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 24(b), Prison Legal News and Michael D. Crews, in his official
capacity, filed cross motions for summary judgment and fully briefed the issues
over eight months ago. Mr. Levitan’s intervention and joinder at this late stage in
this case could not be meaningful without unduly delaying its adjudication and
prejudicing the existing parties. See, e.g., Mt. Hawley Ins. Co. v. Sandy Lake
Properties, Inc., 425 F.3d 1308, 1312 (11th Cir. 2005) (“‘Permissive intervention .
. . is appropriate where . . . the intervention will not unduly prejudice or delay the
adjudication of the rights of the original parties.’” (quoting Georgia, 302 F.3d at

2

1250)). Therefore, Mr. Levitan may not permissively intervene.
For these reasons,
IT IS ORDERED:
The motion is DENIED.
SO ORDERED on December 4, 2013.
s/Mark E. Walker
United States District Judge

3