United States of America v. City of Seattle

Filing 481

ORDER denying nonparty Marguerite Richard's 480 Motion to Intervene. Further, the court DIRECTS the Clerk to refrain from placing any future filings by Ms. Richard on the docket for this case, unless the filing is a motion for reconsideration or a notice of appeal of this order. Signed by Judge James L. Robart.(PM) cc: Ms. Richard via first class mail

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

8
9

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

10

Plaintiff,

11
v.

CASE NO. C12-1282JLR
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO
INTERVENE

12
CITY OF SEATTLE,

13

Defendant.

14
15

Before the court is nonparty Marguerite Richard’s motion “for a chance to testify

16

on Police Department in City Hall for which the court has ordered, but no change.”

17

(Mot. (Dkt. # 480) at 1.) Ms. Richard asks to the court to order Mayor Jenny Durkan,

18

City Attorney Pete Holmes, and Seattle Chief of Police Carmen Best to conduct “an open

19

meeting with Q & A every month because it has never happened systematically in Seattle

20

in its history.” (Mot. at 2.) Ms. Richard is proceeding pro se, and the court liberally

21

construes her filing as a motion to intervene in these proceedings.

22

//

ORDER - 1

1

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a), to intervene in this action as of right,

2

Ms. Richard must establish that she has (1) “an unconditional right to intervene by a

3

federal statute,” or (2) “an interest relating to the . . . transaction that is the subject of the

4

action.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(a). To intervene permissively under Rule 24(b), Ms. Richard

5

must show that she has (1) “a conditional right to intervene by a federal statute,” or (2) “a

6

claim or defense that shares with the main action a common question of law or fact.”

7

Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(b)(1). The burden is on the proposed intervenor to demonstrate that

8

the conditions for intervention are satisfied. United States v. Alisal Water Corp., 370

9

F.3d 915, 919 (9th Cir. 2004).

10

Ms. Richard fails to demonstrate that the conditions for either intervention as of

11

right or for permissive intervention are met. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(a)-(b)(1).

12

Accordingly, the court DENIES her motion to intervene (Dkt. # 480). Further, the court

13

DIRECTS the Clerk to refrain from placing any future filings by Ms. Richard on the

14

docket for this case, unless the filing is a motion for reconsideration or a notice of appeal

15

of this order.

16

Dated this 23rd day of August, 2018.

17
18

A

19

JAMES L. ROBART
United States District Judge

20
21
22

ORDER - 2