Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_79-cv-01630/USCOURTS-cand-3_79-cv-01630-20/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.

JAMES E. TILTON, Acting Secretary,

California Department of Corrections and

Rehabilitation, and EDDIE YLST, Acting

Warden, San Quentin State Prison,

Defendants.

 /

No. C 79-01630 WHA

ORDER DENYING GEORGE AND

KENNEDY MOTIONS TO

INTERVENE

Two Death-Row inmates, Jerry Noble Kennedy and Johnaton S. George, move

separately to intervene as plaintiffs. In addition, applicant Kennedy asks to have counsel

appointed for him. 

To intervene as a plaintiff under FRCP 24(a), an applicant must prove that the other

plaintiffs might not adequately represent the applicant’s interests. FRCP 24(a)(2); Trbovich v.

United Mine Workers of Am., 404 U.S. 528, 538 (1972). To intervene as a plaintiff at the

court’s discretion under FRCP 24(b), the applicant’s claim must have a question of law or fact

in common with the main action. In addition, the court must consider under Rule 24(b) whether

intervention would unduly delay the adjudication of the rights of the original parties. 

Applicant George offers no basis for allowing him to intervene. His motion therefore is

DENIED. Applicant Kennedy asks to be “noticed as an intervenor” on grounds that he does not

want the “Thompson consent decree forsed on me [sic].” He claims the decree prevents him

Case 3:79-cv-01630-WHA Document 909 Filed 05/22/06 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

from exercising his rights under California prison regulations and therefore creates an issue

under the Equal Protection Clause (Br. 1). 

Applicant George does not provide any reason to believe that intervenor Freddie Fuiava

might not adequately represent his interests. Intervenor has raised similar issues about

California prison regulations’ conflict with the decree. Allowing George to intervene at this

time would delay unduly the adjudication of the existing parties’ rights as they move to meet

the Court’s deadlines for a class-certification motion and for consideration of their effort to

modify the consent decree. After the exact content of those proposed modifications is

publicized to inmates (and perhaps changed in response to their comments), applicant George’s

concerns may have been fully addressed. For these reasons, his motion is DENIED. He is not a

party, so his motion for counsel also is DENIED. 

As noted in previous orders, the Court cannot allow all Death Row inmates to intervene

separately. All motions to intervene therefore will be considered carefully, giving motions

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

should consider carefully whether intervenor or plaintiffs adequately represent their interests. 

THE CLERK SHALL SERVE THIS ORDER ON APPLICANTS AT THE ADDRESSES ON

THEIR MOTIONS. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 22, 2006 WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:79-cv-01630-WHA Document 909 Filed 05/22/06 Page 2 of 2