Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-00863/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-00863-7/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

----oo0oo----

Estate of MOHAMMED REZA

ABDOLLAHI, et al.,

NO. CIV. S-02-2488 FCD JFM

Plaintiffs, (Consolidated Cases)

v. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, et al.,

Defendants.

____________________________/

Estate of MATTHEW McEVERS, et

al.,

NO. CIV. S-06-2161 FCD JFM

Plaintiffs,

v.

COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, et al.,

Defendants.

____________________________/

HARRY E.W. McEVERS,

NO. CIV. S-06-2864 FCD JFM PS

Plaintiff,

v.

COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, et al.,

Defendants.

____________________________/

Case 2:07-cv-00863-FCD-JFM Document 60 Filed 07/15/08 Page 1 of 9
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

1 Applicant filed identical motions in all of the related

cases at issue. As such, the court addresses all motions in this

order.

2 Because oral argument will not be of material 

assistance, the court orders this matter submitted on the briefs. 

See E.D. Cal. L.R. 78-230(h).

2

ROCIO ALVARADO, guardian ad

litem for A.D.L., a minor, and

A.G.L., a minor, et al.,

NO. CIV. S-07-0661 FCD JFM

Plaintiffs, (Consolidated Cases)

v.

COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, et al.,

Defendants.

____________________________/

ERIC MARTIN,

NO. CIV. S-07-0863 FCD JFM

Plaintiff,

v.

COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, et al.,

Defendants.

____________________________/

----oo0oo----

This matter is before the court on motions to intervene in a

number of related cases, filed by applicant Eric Martin (“Martin”

or “applicant”). All defendants oppose applicant’s motions.1

For the reason’s set forth below,2 applicant’s motions to

intervene are DENIED.

BACKGROUND

These related cases all arise out of suicides or attempted

suicides at the Sacramento County jail. The first of these cases

was filed in 2002, Estate of Mohammad Reza Abdollahi, et al. v.

County of Sacramento, et al., No. Civ 02-2488 (the “Abdollahi

Case 2:07-cv-00863-FCD-JFM Document 60 Filed 07/15/08 Page 2 of 9
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

3 Martin also filed a motion to intervene in the action

in which he is already the named plaintiff. Applicant’s motion

to intervene in the Martin litigation is DENIED as MOOT.

3

litigation”). Subsequently, two actions arising out of the May

2005 suicide of Matthew McEvers, a federal pretrial detainee at

the Sacramento County Jail, were filed in 2006, Estate of Matthew

McEvers, et al. v. County of Sacramento, et al., No. Civ. 06-

2161, and McEvers v. County of Sacramento, et al., No. Civ. 06-

2864 PS (the “McEvers litigation”). In 2007, two actions were

filed arising out of the April 2005 suicide of David Lopez, a

prisoner at the Sacramento County jail, Alvarado v. County of

Sacramento, et al., No. Civ. 07-0661, and Servantez v. County of

Sacramento, No. Civ. 07-1492 (the “Alvarado litigation”). These

two cases were consolidated on March 3, 2008. (Order [Docket #

29], filed Mar. 3, 2008.) The most recent case, Eric Martin v.

County of Sacramento, et al. (the “Martin litigation”), was filed

in May 2007 by applicant Martin, an inmate at the Sacramento

County Jail who attempted suicide in September 2005. Martin, a

pro se plaintiff, has moved to intervene in the all of the other

related actions.3

ANALYSIS

I. Intervention as of Right 

Plaintiff first asserts that he should be permitted to

intervene as of right under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

24(a). Rule 24(a)(2) governs applications for intervention as of

right and provides:

On timely motion, the court must permit anyone to

intervene who . . . 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

Case 2:07-cv-00863-FCD-JFM Document 60 Filed 07/15/08 Page 3 of 9
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 4 There is no such applicable statute in this case.

4

may as a practical matter impair or impede the movant’s

ability to protect its interest, unless existing

parties adequately represent that interest.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(a) (2008). In the absence of a statute

conferring an unconditional right to intervene,4 the applicant

must demonstrate that: (1) the application is timely; (2) the

applicant has an interest in the subject matter of the

litigation; (3) absent intervention, applicant’s interest will be

impaired; and (4) the existing parties inadequately represent the

applicant’s interests. League of United Latin Am. Citizens v.

Wilson, 131 F.3d 1297, 1302 (9th Cir. 1997). The focus of the

court’s inquiry should be the effect on the applicant, not on

other parties to the litigation. See 6 William Moore’s Federal

Practice 3d Ed. § 24.03(1)(c) (2003).

A. Timeliness

Timeliness is “the threshold requirement” for intervention

as of right. United States v. Oregon, 913 F.2d 576, 588 (9th

Cir. 1990). If the court finds “that the motion to intervene was

not timely, [it] need not reach any of the remaining elements of

Rule 24.” Wilson, 131 F.3d at 1302 (quoting United States v.

Washington, 86 F.3d 1499, 1503 (9th Cir. 1996)). In determining

whether a motion is timely, the court considers: (1) the stage of

the proceedings; (2) the prejudice to other parties; and (3) the

reason for and length of the delay. United States ex rel.

McGough v. Covington Techs., 967 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1992). 

“[A]ny substantial delay weighs heavily against intervention.” 

Wilson, 131 F.3d at 1302. (citations omitted).

Case 2:07-cv-00863-FCD-JFM Document 60 Filed 07/15/08 Page 4 of 9
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

5 Defendants in the other related cases do not dispute

the issue of timeliness in their oppositions to applicant’s

motion. Moreover, while each of these cases are at varying

stages of litigation, all are still in their pretrial stages, and

no motions for summary judgment have yet been filed.

5

Applicant’s failure to timely file is dispositive with

respect to his motion to intervene in the Abdollahi litigation. 

The Abdollahi litigation commenced in November 2002. 

Subsequently, the court heard and ruled upon dispositive motions,

including lengthy motions for summary judgment. All parties have

submitted notice of settlement with the court, and the County

defendants assert that they are in the process of filing a

Request for Dismissal. The interjection of an intervenor at this

stage in the litigation would unnecessarily broaden the

litigation and prejudice the parties in the action, who have

already reached resolution of their claims. See Smith v. Marsh,

194 F.3d 1045, 1051 (9th Cir. 1999) (denying a motion to

intervene on timeliness grounds because, inter alia, intervenors

sought to “inject new issues and matters that are well beyond the

scope of applicants’ claims and [] defenses, thus expanding the

scope of the litigation and causing delay”). As such, it is

clear that applicant’s motion to intervene in the Abdollahi

litigation is untimely and is, therefore, DENIED.5

B. Interest in the Subject Matter of the Litigation 

In order to intervene as of right, the applicant must also

show that he has a significantly protectable interest in the

subject matter of the litigation. Sagebrush Rebellion, Inc. v.

Watt, 713 F.2d 525, 527 (9th Cir. 1983). In order to satisfy

this requirement, and applicant must demonstrate both (1) “the

Case 2:07-cv-00863-FCD-JFM Document 60 Filed 07/15/08 Page 5 of 9
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

6

interest is protected under some law”; and (2) “there is a

relationship between the legally protected interest and the

claims at issue.’” Arakaki v. Cayetano, 324 F.3d 1078, 1084

(quoting Sierra Club v. EPA, 995 F.2d 1478, 1484 (9th Cir.

1993)). An applicant satisfies the relationship requirement only

if the resolution of the plaintiff’s claims will directly affect

the applicant. Id.; see also Greene v. United States, 996 F.2d

973, 977-78 (9th Cir. 1993). Moreover, an intervenor is not

permitted to inject new, unrelated issues into the pending

litigation. Id. at 1086 (citing Sierra Club, 995 F.2d at 1484).

Applicant fails to demonstrate that he has a significantly

protectable interest in the related litigation. As an initial

matter, while applicant asserts that he has an interest in the

litigation, he does not identify what that interest is. However,

even assuming applicant has an interest arising out of the

alleged common policy of deliberate indifference to suicidal

prisoners or pretrial detainees that was applied both to him and

to relatives of those involved in the related cases, applicant

has failed to demonstrate that he satisfies the relationship

requirement. Applicant proffers no evidence or argument to

support the assertion that the resolution of plaintiffs’ claims

will directly affect him. Rather, even if there are common

issues relating to a general policy, applicant’s intervention in

the related cases would inject new, unrelated issues into the

pending litigation. Specifically, applicant’s claims are based

upon separate incidents of treatment and evaluation, conduct by

Case 2:07-cv-00863-FCD-JFM Document 60 Filed 07/15/08 Page 6 of 9
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

6 The court notes that defendant Sokolov is also named as

a defendant in the Alvarado litigation. However, Sokolov appears

to be the only shared defendant between the Martin litigation and

the related cases. 

7 Moreover, the court finds that the remaining two

elements also counsel against intervention as of right. 

Applicant has failed to demonstrate that his interest will be

impaired as a result of his failure to intervene; in fact, he has

filed his own litigation in which he is the named plaintiff. 

Further, he has failed to set forth any evidence or argument

regarding why any interest he may have in the related litigation

is not adequately represented.

7

different defendants,6 and a separate suicide attempt months

after the suicides at issue in the McEvers litigation and the

Alvarado litigation. Therefore, because applicant has failed to

demonstrate a significantly protectable interest in the related

litigation, applicant’s motions for intervention as of right are

DENIED.7 

II. Permissive Intervention

Applicant also seeks permissive intervention pursuant to

Rule 24(b). Rule 24(b) governs applications for permissive

intervention and provides:

On timely motion, the court may permit anyone to

intervene who . . . has a claim or defense that shares

with the main action a common question of law or fact.

. . . In exercising its discretion, the court must

consider whether the intervention will unduly delay or

prejudice the adjudication of the original parties’

rights. 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(b) (2008). A court may grant permissive

intervention where the applicant demonstrates (1) independent

grounds for jurisdiction; (2) the motion is timely; and (3) the

applicant’s claim or defense, and the main action, have a common

question of law or fact. Wilson, 131 F.3d at 1308 (quotations

and citation omitted). Even if the applicant satisfies these

Case 2:07-cv-00863-FCD-JFM Document 60 Filed 07/15/08 Page 7 of 9
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

8

requirements, the court has discretion to deny intervention based

upon other considerations relevant to the individual

circumstances of the case before it. See Donnelly v. Glickman,

159 F.3d 405, 412 (9th Cir. 1998); Venegas v. Skaggs, 867 F.2d

527, 530 (9th Cir. 1989); Orange County v. Air Cal., 799 F.2d

535, 539 (9th Cir. 1986) (“Permissive intervention is committed

to the broad discretion of the district court.”). Such

circumstances include the likelihood that intervention will

unduly delay the main action or will unfairly prejudice the

existing parties. Id. Unlike intervention as of right,

permissive intervention focuses on possible prejudice to the

original parties to the litigation, not the intervenor. See

Moore’s Federal Practice 3d Ed. § 24.10(1) (2003). 

Applicant has not directly addressed the standard for

permissive intervention. However, assuming arguendo that

applicant has demonstrated the requisite elements, the court, in

its discretion, denies applicant’s motion. As set forth above,

applicant’s suit is based upon factually separate and distinct

events from those that are the predicate of the related

litigation. Interjection of applicant’s claims in the other

cases would both complicate and delay adjudication of those

plaintiffs’ claims by requiring defendants to investigate and

litigate factual issues specific to applicant. Moreover, such

litigation would be duplicative of applicant’s own currently

pending litigation. Applicant has proffered no evidence or

argument that his separate litigation is an inferior means of

pressing his claims. As such, applicant’s motions for permissive

intervention are DENIED. 

Case 2:07-cv-00863-FCD-JFM Document 60 Filed 07/15/08 Page 8 of 9
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

9

CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, applicant’s motions to

intervene are DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: July 15, 2008 

 

FRANK C. DAMRELL, Jr.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:07-cv-00863-FCD-JFM Document 60 Filed 07/15/08 Page 9 of 9