Postawko v. Corizon Medical Services et al

Filing 205

ORDER entered by Judge Nanette K. Laughrey. Motion to intervene, Doc. 197 , is denied. (Sreeprakash, Netra)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
CENTRAL DIVISION
MICHAEL POSTAWKO, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
MISSOURI DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 16-CV-4219-NKL

ORDER
Edison Hester, a pro se inmate in the custody of the Missouri Department of Corrections
(“MDOC”), seeks leave to intervene in this class action. For the reasons discussed below, the
motion is denied.
I.

BACKGROUND
Three inmates in MDOC’s custody, Michael Postawko, Christopher Baker, and Michael

Jamerson, bring this suit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that they were denied directacting antiviral (“DAA”) drugs for treatment of their chronic hepatitis C. See Docs. 1 and 30.
On July 26, 2017, the Court granted Plaintiffs’ motion to certify a class consisting of inmates in
MDOC custody with chronic hepatitis C who have not received DAA medications. Doc. 174.
The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals granted leave to defendants Corizon, LLC and MDOC to
appeal the Court’s class-certification decision. Doc. 184. The Court then stayed all deadlines
and proceedings pending the Eighth Circuit’s decision concerning class certification. Doc. 192.
Mr. Hester filed the instant motion to intervene on December 8, 2017. Doc. 197. Mr.
Hester, who has been diagnosed with hepatitis, challenges what he describes as an MDOC
representation “to this Court . . . that 13,000 [M]edicaid recipients in the state have hepatitis.”

1

Doc. 197, at 1. However, said representation apparently was made in a different case, J.E.M. v.
Tidball, W.D. Mo., No. 16-4273-SRB. See Doc. 197-1, at 3. Indeed, Mr. Hester’s motion
appears to be directed entirely to that other case.

Although Mr. Hester failed to include

pleadings with his motion to intervene, the thrust of his complaint as set forth in his motion
appears to be that MDOC fails to provide inmates with adequate nourishment and medical
treatment, which results in what in effect becomes a death sentence for those with serious
illnesses. Mr. Hester asks the Court, inter alia, (i) to declare void certain statutory provisions
that preclude Social Security and Medicaid benefits for prisoners; (ii) to order the release of
prisoners with hepatitis “and/or other deadly diseases”; (iii) to appoint counsel and permit Mr.
Hester to appeal from this Court’s decision concerning these requests; (iv) to order the transfer of
all inmates with hepatitis into federal custody so that they can receive adequate medical care, and
to tax Missouri for resulting costs; or (v) to order MDOC to explain “who set in motion” the
purported misrepresentation concerning Medicaid benefits for inmates with hepatitis. Doc. 197,
at 5-6.
II.

DISCUSSION
The Court must construe a motion to intervene liberally. In re Uponor, Inc., F1807

Plumbing Fittings Prod. Liab. Litig.,  716 F.3d 1057, 1065-66 (8th Cir. 2013). Nonetheless, the
Court must deny Mr. Hester’s motion to intervene for two reasons.
First, Mr. Hester does not suggest that the named plaintiffs are not adequate
representatives of the class of inmates to which he purportedly belongs. See Fed. R. Civ. P.
24(a) (providing that intervention is not required if “existing parties adequately represent” the
proposed intervenor’s interest); Mid-Century Ins. Co. v. Nichols, Case No. 4:12-CV-235, 2012
WL 2684991 at *2 (E.D. Mo. July 6, 2012) (denying motion to intervene where, inter alia, the

2

proposed intervenor “d[id] not address the interests of defendants . . . in this action and how they
differ from” those of the intervenor); see also In re Uponor, 716 F.3d at 1066 (“We have . . .
presumed that representation is adequate when the individual attempting to intervene is a
member of a class already involved in the litigation . . . .”) (quotation marks and citation
omitted).
Second, Mr. Hester’s proposed claims and the Plaintiff’s claims do not share a common
question of law or fact.

See Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(b) (providing that the Court may permit

intervention if the intervenor “has a claim or defense that shares with the main action a common
question of law or fact”). Mr. Hester’s complaints concerning nourishment and general medical
treatment are not properly raised in this action concerning whether inmates with hepatitis C have
a right to administration of DAA medications. Missouri Coal. for the Env’t Found. v. McCarthy,
No. 16-4069-NKL, 2016 WL 3566253, at *5 (W.D. Mo. June 27, 2016) (denying motion to
intervene where intervenors’ involvement was “more likely to delay and sidetrack this suit”)
(citing N. Dakota ex rel. Stenehjem v. United States, 787 F.3d 918, 923 (8th Cir. 2015)). Mr.
Hester’s discussion of Medicaid and Social Security benefits, crime bills, and “warehousing” of
prisoners, and the nature of the relief he seeks—from declarations concerning Medicaid and
Social Security benefits for Missouri inmates, to the release or transfer of seriously ill inmates, to
accountability for a purported misrepresentation by the MDOC—further demonstrate that his
complaints are not related to the central issue in this case. See United Fire & Cas. Co. v. Titan
Contractors Serv., Inc., No. 10-2076, 2014 WL 4851801, at *3 (E.D. Mo. Sept. 29, 2014)
(denying motion to intervene where “the overlap of common factual questions . . . [wa]s virtually
nonexistent”).

3

III.

CONCLUSION
For these reasons, Mr. Hester’s motion is denied.

s/ Nanette K. Laughrey______
NANETTE K. LAUGHREY
United States District Judge
Dated: January 24, 2018
Jefferson City, Missouri

4