Ajala, Mustafa-El v. Swiekatowski, William et al

Filing 97

ORDER denying Titus Henderson's 96 Motion because he is not a party to the case and he does not have the right to intervene. Signed by District Judge Barbara B. Crabb on 7/24/2015. (elc),(ps)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - MUSTAFA-EL K.A. AJALA
formerly known as Dennis E. Jones-El,
ORDER
Plaintiff,
13-cv-638-bbc
v.
WILLIAM SWIEKATOWSKI,
Defendant.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Pro se prisoner Mustafa-El K.A. Ajala is proceeding on a claim that defendant William
Swiekatowski gave plaintiff a conduct report because of his race and religion. Trial is
scheduled for August 24, 2015. Now before the court is a document called “Amicus Curiae
Motion/Order to Interven[e] for Discovery Sanctions” filed by a prisoner named Titus
Henderson, who is not a party in this case. Dkt. #96.
In the document, Henderson alleges that prison officials transferred him to a different
prison in order to stop him from communicating with plaintiff about this case. In addition,
Henderson says that officials have confiscated emails and other documents from him that
relate to this case. In particular, he says the documents show that defendant and other
officials target African American prisoners for undeserved disciplinary treatment.
Henderson does not describe the contents of the documents in any detail and he does
not explain how he obtained the documents or why he believes that his transfer has anything
1

to do with plaintiff. However those questions might be answered, I cannot take action on
Henderson’s motion because he is not a party in this case, which means he does not have
standing to seek relief on plaintiff’s behalf. It is not clear whether plaintiff even wants any
assistance from Henderson. Further, Henderson does not contend that he has any legal
interest in the claim that plaintiff is raising in this case, so Henderson cannot intervene as
a new party. Fed. R. Civ. P. 24.
To the extent Henderson believes that prison officials are violating his constitutional
rights, he is free to file his own lawsuit. However, to the extent that Henderson believes that
officials are violating plaintiff’s rights, that is an issue for plaintiff to raise. Henderson says
that officials confiscated his legal materials on May 20, 2015 and he does not allege that
prison officials have refused to allow him to correspond with plaintiff, so Henderson could
have informed plaintiff of any problems and let plaintiff decide whether to seek court
assistance.
Henderson says that he sent plaintiff a copy of his motion, so if plaintiff was not
aware of Henderson’s concerns before, he should be aware of them now. (I have included
a copy of Henderson’s filing with this order as well.) If plaintiff wants to file a motion
related to the concerns in Henderson’s filing, he may have until August 5, 2015 to do so.
If plaintiff does not file anything on this issue by that date, I will construe plaintiff’s silence
to mean that he is not pursuing the issue. Because trial is one month away, defendant
should be prepared to respond promptly in the event that plaintiff files a motion.

2

ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that Titus Henderson’s motion, dkt.#96, is DENIED because he
is not a party to the case and he does not have the right to intervene.
Entered this 24th day of July, 2015.
BY THE COURT:
/s/
BARBARA B. CRABB
District Judge

3