State of Washington, et al., v. Trump., et al

Filing 174

ORDER DENYING MOTIONS TO INTERVENE by David A. Golden 121 , Kareem Salessi, Ann Dawson 167 and Rick Satcher 173 . Further, the court DIRECTS the Clerk to refrain from placing any future filings by any of these pro se litigants on the court's 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: Golden, Salessi, Dawson, Satcher via the U.S. Mail

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

8
9

STATE OF WASHINGTON, et al.,

10

Plaintiffs,

11
v.

CASE NO. C17-0141JLR
ORDER DENYING MOTIONS
TO INTERVENE

12
DONALD TRUMP, et al.,

13

Defendants.

14
15

Before the court are motions to intervene by David A. Golden (Golden Mot. (Dkt.

16

# 121)), Kareem Salessi (Salessi Mot. (Dkt. # 166)), Ann Dawson 1 (Dawson Mot. (Dkt. #

17

167)), and Rick Satcher (Satcher Mot. (Dkt. # 173)). The foregoing litigants are

18

//

19

//

20

//

21
22

1

Ms. Dawson appears to file her motion on behalf of three entities that she identifies as
“Muslins [sic], Jews, and Christian [sic] against Terrorism,” “‘We the People’ Tea Party,” and
“Native Americans for a Unity Nation.” (Dawson Mot. at 1.)

ORDER - 1

1

proceeding pro se, and the court liberally construes their filings as motions to intervene

2

in these proceedings. 2

3

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

4

action, a proposed intervenor must establish that he or she has (1) “an unconditional right

5

to intervene by a federal statute,” or (2) “an interest relating to the . . . transaction that is

6

the subject of the action . . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(a). For permissive intervention, a

7

proposed intervenor must show that he or she has (1) “a conditional right to intervene by

8

a federal statute,” or (2) “a claim or defense that shares with the main action a common

9

question of law or fact.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(b)(1). The burden is on the proposed

10

intervenor to demonstrate that the conditions for intervention are satisfied. United States

11

v. Alisal Water Corp., 370 F.3d 915, 919 (9th Cir. 2004).

12

The four proposed intervenors fail to demonstrate that the conditions for either

13

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

14

(b)(1). Accordingly, the court DENIES all four motions to intervene (Dkt. ## 121, 166,

15

167, 173). Further, the court DIRECTS the Clerk to refrain from placing any future

16

//

17

//

18

//

19

//

20

//

21
2

22

The court liberally construes the pleadings of pro se litigants. See Brazil v. U.S. Dep’t
of Navy, 66 F.3d 193, 199 (9th Cir. 1995).

ORDER - 2

1

filings by any of these pro se litigants on the court’s docket for this case, unless the filing

2

is a motion for reconsideration or a notice of appeal of this order.

3

Dated this 29th day of March, 2017.

4
5

A

6

JAMES L. ROBART
United States District Judge

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22

ORDER - 3