IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-10341

Summary Calendar 

BONNIE ALLEN-PIERONI, ET AL 

 Plaintiffs 

SOUTHWESTERN CORRECTIONAL, L.L.C., doing business as Lasalle 

Southwest Corrections; JOHNSON COUNTY, TEXAS; BOB ALFORD; JOHN 

DOES 1-5; JANE DOES 1-5; LASALLE MANAGEMENT COMPANY, L.L.C., 

 Defendants - Appellees 

v. 

KRISTI L. WHITE; ALICE DIANE MILLER 

 Movants - Appellants 

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas 

USDC No. 3:13-CV-4089

Before JOLLY, OWEN, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Intervenors-Appellants Kristi L. White and Alice Diane Miller appeal 

the district court’s denial of their motion to intervene. 

 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

August 4, 2017

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 17-10341 Document: 00514103387 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/04/2017
No. 17-10341

2 

On October 9, 2013, Plaintiffs Bonnie Allen-Pieroni et al. filed this action 

against a prison—Southwest Correctional, LLC and a group of related 

individuals and entities—seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and other 

remedies after inmate Ivan Earl Allen died on account of allegedly deficient 

medical care. After discovery was conducted in part pursuant to a 

confidentiality and protective order, this was case was dismissed with 

prejudice by joint stipulation on September 30, 2016. 

On February 17, 2016, Plaintiffs Kristi L. White and Alice Diane Miller 

(collectively “White”) filed a lawsuit against the same prison also seeking relief 

under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and other remedies after a different inmate, Ronald 

Ray Beesley, died about four years after Ivan, also on account of allegedly 

deficient medical care. See Kristi L White v. Southwestern Correctional, LLC, 

No. 3:16-cv-00448-B (N.D. Tex.). On November 18, 2016—more than a month 

after this case was dismissed and closed—White moved to intervene in this 

case for the limited purpose of accessing the sealed discovery conducted in this 

case. 

The district court, adopting the report and recommendation of the 

magistrate judge, denied White’s motion to intervene, finding that she had no 

standing to intervene. The district court relied on this Court’s decision in Deus 

v. Allstate Ins. Co., 15 F.3d 506, 526 (5th Cir. 1994), in which we held that a 

third party who sought to intervene in a closed case for the purpose of obtaining 

access to sealed discovery had “no personal interest affording them standing to 

intervene,” and so denied the motion to intervene. 

 Case: 17-10341 Document: 00514103387 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/04/2017
No. 17-10341

3 

We find no error in the district court’s well-reasoned opinion. While 

“there is no Article III requirement that intervenors have standing in a 

pending case,” it is firmly established in this circuit that “[i]n the absence of a 

live controversy in a pending case, an intervenor would need standing to 

intervene.” Newby v. Enron Corp., 443 F.3d 416, 422 (5th Cir. 2006) (citing 

Deus, 15 F.3d at 526); accord Bond v. Utreras, 585 F.3d 1061, 1072 (7th Cir. 

2009) (“[T]he Fifth Circuit has concluded that a third party seeking to 

intervene to challenge a protective order after the main controversy has been 

disposed of must demonstrate standing.”). Although White argues on appeal 

that she has a strong personal interest in the sealed discovery in this case 

because her own case is factually related to this one (inasmuch as it involves 

medical care administered at the same prison), and that allowing access to the 

discovery would reduce the burden on the respective parties in her case, she 

has not demonstrated that she has standing in this case. She is not part of any 

Article III case or controversy in this now-settled dispute between 

Southwestern Correctional, LLC, and the successors of inmate Ivan Allen. See 

Deus, 15 F.3d at 525-26.

AFFIRMED.1

 

1 All pending motions are denied as moot.

 Case: 17-10341 Document: 00514103387 Page: 3 Date Filed: 08/04/2017