McGuire et al v. Clackamas County Counsel et al

Filing 48

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION - Mead's motion 27 for intervention should be DENIED. The Findings and Recommendation will be referred to a district judge for review. Objections, if any, are due September 11, 2009. If no objections are filed, then the Findings and Recommendation will go under advisement on that date. If objections are filed, then a response is due within 10 days after being served with a copy of the objections are filed. When the response is due or filed, whichever date is earlier, the Findings and Recommendation will go under advisement. Signed on 8/27/09 by Magistrate Judge John V. Acosta. (peg)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT C O U R T F O R T H E D I S T R I C T OF O R E G O N

DAVID R. McGUIRE a n d ARLINE B. McGUIRE, Plaintiffs.

CV.08-1098-AC FINDINGS A N D RECOMMENDATION

v.
S C O T T CIECKO. Clackamas C o u n t y Counsel; JUDGE RONALD E. C I N N I G E R , S e n i o r Judge for t h e S t a t e o f Oregon; K I M P R I E S T , C l a c k a m a s C o u n t y Z o n i n g E n f o r c e m e n t Officer; K E N SPIEGLE, C l a c k a m a s C o u n t y Z o n i n g E n f o r c e m e n t Supervisor; and CLACKAMAS COUNTY, Defendants.

A C O S T A , M a g i s t r a t e Judge: Findings a n d Recommendation Presently before the court is a motion t o intervene filed by Dorothy H. Mead ("Mead") pursuant to FED. R. CIY. P. 24(b). Mead claims that she has an unprotected interest in this litigation

Page -1- FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION

{SIB}

by virtue o f h e r membership in, and position as director of, Crystal Springs Assembly Church (the "Church").

Background
D a v i d R. McGuire, Arline B. McGuire (the "McGuires"), a n d the Church filed this action s e e k i n g r e d r e s s f o r c o n s t i t u t i o n a l v i o l a t i o n s r e l a t i n g to t h e e n f o r c e m e n t o f z o n i n g l a w s w i t h r e g a r d to the real property located at 22988 S. D a y H i l l Road, Estacada. Oregon (the "Property"). The McGuires, appearing p r o se, applied for in f o r m a pauperis status. O n N o v e m b e r 21, 2008, the court granted the McGuires i n f o r m a p a u p e r i s status and relieved them o f the obligation t o pay a filing fee. (Am. Order t o Proceed In Forma Pauperis a t 2.) O n t h a t date, t h e c o u r t also denied the C h u r c h ' s application for in f o r m a p a u p e r i s status based o n the fact t h a t the Church is a n artificial entity and n o t e n t i t l e d t o s u c h s t a t u s . T h e c o u r t d i r e c t e d t h e C h u r c h t o p a y t h e $ 3 5 0 f i l i n g fee w i t h i n t h i r t y days o r face d i s m i s s a l as a p l a i n t i f f i n t h i s a c t i o n . ( A m . O r d e r t o P r o c e e d I n F o r m a P a u p e r i s a t 2 . ) O n January 12, 2009, the court issued a n Order to Show Cause noting that the Church h a d n o t paid the filing fee, directing the Church t o show g o o d cause, in writing, w h y the filing fee h a d n o t been paid, a n d advising t h a t failure t o do so w o u l d result i n dismissal o f the Church as a p l a i n t i f f i n t h i s action. ( O r d e r t o S h o w C a u s e a t 2). T h e C h u r c h f a i l e d t o r e s p o n d t o t h e s h o w c a u s e order. O n March 6, 2009, the court dismissed the C h u r c h from this action, without prejudice, for failure to pay the filing fee. (J. o f Dismissal o f P L Crystal Springs Assembly a t 2.)

Legal Standard
FED. R. CIV. P. 24(b)(l)1 gives the court discretion t o p e r m i t anyone t o intervene who:

IMead cites FED. R. CIV. P. 24(b)(2) in h e r motion. T h e current version o fthat rule is limited t o i n t e r v e n t i o n b y a g o v e r n m e n t o f f i c e r o r agency. T h e c o u r t w i l l c o n s i d e r M e a d ' s m o t i o n u n d e r R u l e 2 4 ( b) ( 1 ) . Page -2- FINDINGS A N D R E C O M M E N D A T I O N

{SIB}

(A) is given a conditional right to intervene by a federal statute; or

(B) has a claim o r defense that shares w i t h the main action a common question o f l a w or fact.
A b s e n t a s t a t u t e c o n f e r r i n g a r i g h t to i n t e r v e n e ( a s i s t h e c a s e i n t h i s a c t i o n ) , t h e a p p l i c a n t f o r i n t e r v e n t i o n m u s t show: ( 1 ) i n d e p e n d e n t g r o u n d s f o r j u r i s d i c t i o n ; ( 2 ) t h a t t h e m o t i o n i s t i m e l y ; a n d (3) that the applicant's claim or defense. and the underlying action, share a c o m m o n question o f l a w o r f a c t . Donnellyv. Glickman, 159 F.3d 4 0 5 , 4 1 2 (9th Cir.1998)(citing Nw. Forest Res. Councilv. Glickman, 82 F.3d 825, 837 (9th Cir. 1 9 9 6 » . Even w h e n the proposed intervenor satisfies these three r e q u i r e m e n t s , t h e d i s t r i c t c o u l d h a s d i s c r e t i o n t o d e n y p e r m i s s i v e i n t e r v e n t i o n i f t h e intervention will unduly delay the m a i n action or will unfairly prejudice the existing parties. FED. R. CIV. P. 24(b); Donnelly, 159 F.3d at 412. Any motion t o intervene " m u s t state the grounds for i n t e r v e n t i o n a n d b e a c c o m p a n i e d b y a p l e a d i n g t h a t sets o u t t h e c l a i m o r d e f e n s e f o r w h i c h intervention is sought." FED. R. CIV. P. 24(c). Discussion M e a d has failed to file a pleading that sets o u t the claim o r defense for which intervention is. sought, as required by Rule 24(c). For this reason alone, M e a d ' s motion for intervention should b e d e n i e d . H o w e v e r , e v e n i f M e a d ' s m o t i o n w a s filed i n a c c o r d a n c e w i t h R u l e 2 4 , h e r m o t i o n s t i l l s h o u l d b e denied. M e a d ' s a s s e r t e d i n t e r e s t i n t h i s c a s e i s o n l y t h r o u g h h e r c a p a c i t y as a r e p r e s e n t a t i v e o f t h e ' Church. She expressly states that she has an interest i n the underlying litigation as the director and m e m b e r o f t h e C h u r c h . S h e c o n t e n d s t h a t s h e a l o n e is r e s p o n s i b l e f o r p r o t e c t i n g t h e p r o p e r t y o f t h e C h u r c h , a s w e l l as t h e C h u r c h ' s m e m b e r s a n d p a s t o r s , a n d t h a t t h e M c G u i r e s n e e d a s s i s t a n c e

Page -3- FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION

{SIB}

protecting the Church's interest i n this litigation. I t is clear that Mead is not seeking to intervene to p r o t e c t h e r o w n i n t e r e s t s b u t , r a t h e r , t h e i n t e r e s t s o f t h e Church. T h e C h u r c h w a s a n o r i g i n a l plaintiff i n this action but was dismissed without prejudice when it failed to pay the filing fee. M e a d should not be allowed to represent the C h u r c h ' s interest through intervention when the Church e l e c t e d n o t t o pursue its own interests when faced with paying $350. Furthermore, by alloWing Mead to intervene to "protect" the C h u r c h ' s interests, rather than to allow her to protect her individual interests, the court would be allowing her to effectively act as the Church's representative to the court in this case, which she may not do unless she is admitted to practice law i n this court. See, e.g.,
In re America West Airlines/Licht v. America West Airlines, 4 0 F.3d 1058, 1059 (9th Cir.

1 9 9 4 ) ( " C o r p o r a t i o n s and o t h e r u n i n c o r p o r a t e d a s s o c i a t i o n s m u s t a p p e a r i n c o u r t t h r o u g h a n attorney."). This rule applies to churches. See Church o fthe N e w Testament v. United States, 783 F.2d 771, 773-74 (9th Cit. 1986)(referring to the church as an unincorporated association and a c k n o w l e d g i n g t h a t u n i n c o r p o r a t e d a s s o c i a t i o n s " m u s t a p p e a r through an attorney").
Conclusion

M e a d ' s m o t i o n ( # 2 1 ) for i n t e r v e n t i o n s h o u l d b e D E N I E D . S c h e d u l i n i Order T h e F i n d i n g s a n d R e c o m m e n d a t i o n w i l l b e r e f e r r e d t o a d i s t r i c t j u d g e for r e v i e w . Objections, i f any, are due September 11, 2009. l f n o objections are filed, then the Findings a n d Recommendation will go under advisement o n that date. I f objections are filed, then a response is due within 10 days after being served with a copy

II/II
II/II

II II /
Page -4- FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDAn O N
{SIB}

ofthe objections are filed. W h e n the response is due o r filed, whichever date is earlier, t h e Findings and Recommendation will go under advisement. DATED this 2 7th day o f August, 2009.

J O H N V. A C O S T A i t e d States Magistrate J u d g e

Page -5- FINDINGS A N D R E C O M M E N D An O N

{SIB}