Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_79-cv-01630/USCOURTS-cand-3_79-cv-01630-11/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MAURICE THOMPSON ET AL., on behalf of

themselves and all others similarly situated,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

JEANNE S. WOODFORD, Acting Secretary,

California Department of Corrections and

Rehabilitation, and EDDIE YLST, Acting

Warden, San Quentin State Prison,

Defendants.

 /

No. C 79-01630 WHA

ORDER RE MOTION TO

INTERVENE AND REQUEST FOR

RULING ON PREVIOUS MOTION

Two Death-Row inmates, Scott Pinholster and Luis Maciel, move pro se for intervention

in the above-entitled civil action. They also request a ruling on a previously filed motion to

dismiss this action. That previous motion was made on grounds that the consent decree in this

action is invalid because no class has been certified.

Movants have asked to intervene pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. Rule

23 does not provide a mechanism for intervention, although it does state that “[i]n the conduct

of [Rule 23 class actions] . . . the court may make appropriate orders: . . . requiring, for the

protection of the members of the class or otherwise for the fair conduct of the action, that notice

be given . . . of the opportunity of members . . . to intervene and present claims or defenses, or

otherwise to come into the action . . . ,” FRCP 23(d), (d)(2). The procedure and substance of

intervention, however, is governed by Rule 24. Movants have not followed the procedural

requirements of Rule 24. Nor have they given any reason to believe that intervenor Freddie

Case 3:79-cv-01630-WHA Document 891 Filed 04/12/06 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

Fuiava does not adequately represent their interests, a requirement to win a motion to intervene

as of right. See FRCP 24(a). 

For these reasons, the motion to intervene is DENIED without prejudice to renewing it in

accordance with Rule 24. Movants are advised to consider carefully whether Mr. Fuiava

adequately represents their interests. He advanced the objections to the proposed modification

of the consent decree as did Mr. Fuiava. 

As a practical matter, the Court could not allow all Death Row inmates to intervene in

this action. Any future motions to intervene will therefore be considered carefully, giving

motions made pro se a liberal construction, and granted only with great care. 

Movants’ previous motion to dismiss the action was effectively decided April 5, 2006,

during the hearing on the motion to intervene. The Court held that this action would not be

dismissed as moot despite the failure to certify a class before entry of the consent decree. 

Plaintiffs were given permission to move for certification of a class. Movants’ previous request

to dismiss the action for failure to certify a class is therefore DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 12, 2006 WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:79-cv-01630-WHA Document 891 Filed 04/12/06 Page 2 of 2