Bailey et al v. Livingston et al

Filing 147

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER DENYING 101 MOTION to Intervene, 26 MOTION to be added as Plaintiff, 88 MOTION to Intervene, 93 MOTION to Intervene, 80 MOTION to Intervene, 38 MOTION for Leave to File to Join as Additional Plaintif, [115 ] MOTION to Intervene, 83 MOTION to Intervene, 65 MOTION to Intervene, 86 AMENDED 51 MOTION MOTION to Intervene, 49 MOTION to Intervene, 102 MOTION to Intervene, 43 MOTION to Intervene, 89 MOTION to Intervene, 55 MOTION to Dismiss, 72 MOTION to Intervene, 7 MOTION To Join This Litigation, 87 MOTION to Intervene, 123 MOTION to Intervene, 94 MOTION to Intervene, 20 MOTION to Intervene, 137 MOTION to Intervene, 48 MOTION to Inter vene, 37 MOTION for Discovery, 51 MOTION to Intervene, 57 MOTION to Intervene, 52 MOTION to Intervene, 98 MOTION to Intervene, 47 MOTION to Intervene, 39 MOTION to Join as Additional Plaintiff, 95 MOTION to Intervene, 104 MOTION Leave to Join as Additional Plaintiff, 145 MOTION order of instruction, 73 MOTION to Intervene, 105 MOTION for Joinder as to 1 Complaint, 97 MOTION to Intervene, 50 MOTION to Intervene, 84 MOTION to Intervene (Signed by Judge Keith P Ellison) Parties notified.(sloewe, 4)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
DAVID BAILEY, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
V.
BRAD LIVINGSTON, et al.,
Defendants.

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:14-cv-01698

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
In this case, the Court has been asked by Plaintiffs to require improvements in prison
conditions at the Wallace Pack Unit. The Court is now asked to allow intervention by twenty-six
inmates at the Hutchins State Jail, three inmates at the C.T. Terrell Unit, and one inmate at the
Richard P. LeBlanc Unit.

All units are facilities under the direction of Defendant Texas

Department of Criminal Justice (“TDCJ”). All parties in this case are opposed to the proposed
interventions. Moreover, it is the opinion of the Court that the proposed interventions will
unduly delay the adjudication of the original parties’ rights. All pending Motions to Intervene
are therefore DENIED. The related Motions filed by Proposed Intervenor Charles C. Taylor, Jr.
and non-party Richard Jaxson are also DENED.
I.

Motions to Intervene
Thirty inmates have filed one or more Motions to Intervene in this case.1 (Collectively,

“Motions to Intervene” and “Movants.”)

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allow

intervention in existing litigation under Rule 24, which provides:

1

Doc. Nos. 7, 20, 26, 38, 39, 43, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 57, 65, 72, 73, 80, 83, 84, 86, 87, 88, 89, 93, 94, 95, 97, 98,
101, 102, 104, 105, 115, 123, and 137.

1

(a) Intervention of Right. On timely motion, the court must permit anyone to
intervene who:
(1) is given an unconditional right to intervene by a federal statute; or
(2) claims an interest relating to the property or transaction that is the subject of
the action, and is so situated that disposing of the action may as a practical matter
impair or impede the movant’s ability to protect its interest, unless existing parties
adequately represent that interest.
(b) Permissive Intervention.
(1) In General. On timely motion, the court may permit anyone to intervene who:
(A) is given a conditional right to intervene by a federal statute; or
(B) has a claim or defense that shares with the main action a common question of
law or fact.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 24. Movants have not claimed an unconditional right to intervene under a federal
statute, nor can they claim an interest in the subject of the action sufficient for the “intervention
of right” standard under Rule 24(a)(2).

The Motions to Intervene therefore properly are

considered under the guidelines for “permissive intervention” provided by Rule 24(b).
Permissive intervention is “wholly discretionary with the [district] court . . . even though
there is a common question of law or fact, or the requirements of Rule 24(b) are otherwise
satisfied.” Kneeland v. National Collegiate Athletic Ass’n, 806 F.2d 1285, 1289 (5th Cir. 1987)
(quoting New Orleans Public Service, Inc. v. United Gas Pipe Line Co., 732 F.2d 452, 470-71
(5th Cir.) (en banc), cert denied, 469 U.S. 1019 (1984) (internal citation omitted); Bush v.
Viterna, 740 F.2d 350, 359 (5th Cir. 1984). In considering a request for permissive intervention,
it is proper to consider whether the Movants will significantly contribute to the full development
of the underlying factual interests in the suit. United Gas Pipe Line Co., 732 F.2d at 472. Courts
are also instructed to inquire whether “the intervention will unduly delay or prejudice the
adjudication of the original parties’ rights.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(b)(3).
Movants are currently incarcerated at three different state prison facilities. None of the
Movants is incarcerated at the Wallace Pack Unit, which is the facility housing all named
Plaintiffs and putative class members. Because they do not reside in the Wallace Pack Unit, it is
2

unlikely that Movants would be able to contribute to the development of the facts at issue in this
case. The Court is also persuaded by Plaintiffs and Defendants that permitting intervention
would cause undue delay and prejudice to the existing parties.

Moreover, disallowing

intervention in this case has no effect on Movants’ ability to bring suit in separate actions, nor
will the ultimate disposition of this case affect their rights. The Motions to Intervene pending
before the Court therefore are DENIED.
II.

Motion for Discovery
Proposed Intervenor Charles C. Taylor, Jr. has filed a Motion for Discovery. (Doc. No.

37.) Because Mr. Taylor is not a party in this case, he is not entitled to discovery and his Motion
is DENIED.
II.

Motion to Dismiss and Motion for Order of Instruction
Mr. Richard Jaxson has filed a Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 55) as well as a Motion for

Order of Instruction. (Doc. No. 145.) Mr. Jaxson is not a party and therefore cannot move the
Court to seek dismissal or other such relief in this case. The Motion to Dismiss and Motion for
Order of Instruction therefore are DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
SIGNED at Houston, Texas, on this the 20th day of November, 2014.

KEITH P. ELLISON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3