Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_79-cv-01630/USCOURTS-cand-3_79-cv-01630-18/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 PINHOLSTER

AND MACIEL MOTION TO

INTERVENE

Two Death-Row inmates, Scott Pinholster and Luis Maciel, move to intervene pursuant

to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a). They also ask the Court to take judicial notice of a

civil action in this district, Pinholster v. Woodford, C 03-3761 (JW), and of Wilkinson v. Austin,

125 S. Ct. 2384 (2005). Finally, they ask for dismissal of the instant action as being moot. 

To intervene as a plaintiff as of right, 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) (“The requirement of the Rule is satisfied if the

applicant shows that representation of his interest ‘may be’ inadequate; and the burden of

making that showing should be treated as minimal.”). 

Applicants provide no sufficient reason to find that intervenor Freddie Fuiava might not

adequately represent their interests. They try to support their application by claiming that

intervenor’s objections to the most recent proposal to modify the consent decree did not cover

Case 3:79-cv-01630-WHA Document 905 Filed 05/18/06 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

all objections that applicants have (Br. 1, 3). That proposal is being superceded by a new

proposal. Also, the mere fact that intervenor has not yet raised all the arguments that applicants

want him to does not indicate that he might not adequately represent their interests. One reason

why he might not have advocated those arguments yet is that he only became a party on April 6. 

Since then, the case has been largely on hold awaiting a motion for class certification and also

submission of a new proposal to modify the consent decree. Intervenor has had few

opportunities to act, so it is unreasonable to conclude, based on that alone, that intervenor does

not share applicants’ interests. Applicants have not offered any reason to find inadequacy of

representation by intervenor. The motion to intervene therefore is DENIED. 

The Court takes judicial notice of the existence of Pinholster v. Woodford. No judicial

notice need be taken of Supreme Court opinions; they are not adjudicative facts in this action. 

Because applicants are not parties, their request to dismiss this action is DENIED, without any

suggestion that the request would have been properly brought if they were a party. 

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

separately 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. Potential

intervenors should consider carefully whether intervenor or plaintiffs adequately represent their

interests. 

THE CLERK SHALL SERVE THIS ORDER ON SCOTT PINHOLSTER AND LUIS MACIEL AT

THE ADDRESS ON THEIR MOTION. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 17, 2006 WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:79-cv-01630-WHA Document 905 Filed 05/18/06 Page 2 of 2