Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_01-cv-01351/USCOURTS-cand-3_01-cv-01351-53/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
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

1

The brief, which is dated October 8, 2007, was filed in Coleman on October 12, 2007

(docket no. 2459). It was received but not filed by the Plata court.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTS

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

AND THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT COMPOSED OF THREE JUDGES 

PURSUANT TO SECTION 2284, TITLE 28 UNITED STATES CODE

RALPH COLEMAN, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER,

et al.,

Defendants.

NO. CIV S-90-0520 LKK JFM P

THREE-JUDGE COURT

MARCIANO PLATA, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER,

et al.,

Defendants.

NO. C01-1351 TEH

THREE-JUDGE COURT

ORDER REJECTING “AMICUS”

BRIEF FILED BY PATRICK

WILSON AND DENYING

MOTION TO INTERVENE

Patrick Wilson, who purports to be a former member of the plaintiff class, submitted a

brief entitled “amicus.”1

 However, Mr. Wilson has not been granted leave to appear in these

proceedings as an amicus curiae. “The privilege of being heard amicus rests in the discretion

of the court which may grant or refuse leave according [to whether] it deems the proffered

information timely, useful, or otherwise.” Cmty. Ass’n for Restoration of Env’t v. DeRuyter

Bros. Dairy, 54 F. Supp. 2d 974, 975 (E.D. Wa. 1999) (citing Hoptowit v. Ray, 682 F.2d

1237, 1260 (9th Cir.1982)). Having reviewed Mr. Wilson’s “amicus” filing, which the Court

Case 3:01-cv-01351-JST Document 991 Filed 11/30/07 Page 1 of 2
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

construes as a motion for leave to file an amicus brief, the Court finds good cause to DENY

the motion. Accordingly, Mr. Wilson shall not be granted amicus status in this case.

In addition, Mr. Wilson previously sought to intervene in these proceedings on

August 29, 2007 (Coleman docket no. 2391). That motion is also DENIED, as Mr. Wilson

has not and cannot demonstrate that he meets the requirements for intervention under Federal

Rule of Civil Procedure 24.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 11/30/07 /s/ 

STEPHEN REINHARDT

UNITED STATES CIRCUIT JUDGE

NINTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS

Dated: 11/30/07 

LAWRENCE K. KARLTON

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Dated: 11/30/07 

THELTON E. HENDERSON

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Case 3:01-cv-01351-JST Document 991 Filed 11/30/07 Page 2 of 2