UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

RAFIEL RIGGINS,

 

Petitioner, Case No. 09-13144

v. HON. AVERN COHN

STEVEN RIVARD,

Respondent.

________________________________/

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION (Doc. 30) 

AND 

MOTION TO INTERVENE (Doc. 31)

I.

This is a habeas case under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner Rafiel Riggins

(Petitioner), proceeding pro se, filed a petition challenging his state court convictions

and sentence, raising eight claims. On May 11, 2014, the Court denied the petition and

declined to issue a certificate of appealability. (Doc. 24). Petitioner filed a notice of

appeal. (Doc. 28)

Nevertheless, another state prisoner, Omar Pouncy, who has his own habeas

case pending in this district, Pouncy v. Palmer, No. 13-cv-14695, moves for

reconsideration and to intervene in the case. Pouncy explains that he is raising the

same issue that Petitioner raised regarding the alleged closure of the courtroom during

jury selection, and that the Court erroneously concluded that Petitioner’s claim cannot

be based on clearly established Supreme Court law existing at the time of Petitioner’s

trial. The motions are DENIED. The reasons follow.

2:09-cv-13144-AC-RSW Doc # 32 Filed 06/01/15 Pg 1 of 3 Pg ID 1236
II.

A.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24 governs intervention in the federal courts and

applies to motions to intervene in habeas cases. Rule 24(a) governs intervention as of

right and Rule 24(b) governs permissive intervention. Rule 24(a) provides:

Upon timely application anyone shall be permitted to intervene in an

action: (1) when a statute of the United States confers an unconditional

right to intervene; or (2) when the applicant claims an interest relating to

the property or transaction which is the subject of the action and the

applicant is so situated that the disposition of the action may as a practical

matter impair or impede the applicant's ability to protect that interest,

unless the applicant's interest is adequately represented by existing

parties.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(a). A party seeking to intervene as of right must establish four

elements: “(1) timeliness of the application to intervene, (2) the applicant's substantial

legal interest in the case, (3) impairment of the applicant's ability to protect that interest

in the absence of intervention, and inadequate representation of that interest by parties

already before the court.” Providence Baptist Church v. Hillandale Committee, Ltd., 425

F.3d 309, 315 (6th Cir.2005) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted); see also

Arakaki v. Cayetano, 324 F.3d 1078, 1083 (9th Cir.2003). “Each of these four

requirements must be satisfied to support a right to intervene.” Arakaki, 324 F.3d at

1083.

In the habeas context, “it was not intended that the writ of habeas corpus should

be availed of, as a matter course, by intruders or uninvited meddlers, styling themselves

next friends.” Whitmore v. Arkansas, 495 U.S. 149, 164 (1990) (quotation marks

omitted). It is a well-established principle that a litigant cannot maintain a federal

2

2:09-cv-13144-AC-RSW Doc # 32 Filed 06/01/15 Pg 2 of 3 Pg ID 1237
habeas action to redress a constitutional wrong to others, or to assert the rights of third

parties. Singleton v. Wulff, 428 U.S. 106, 113–14 (1976). A plaintiff may assert the

rights of a third party only “[w]here practical obstacles prevent a party from asserting

rights on behalf of itself.” Secretary of State of Md. v. Joseph H. Munson Co., Inc., 467

U.S. 947, 956 (1984). To fit within this exception, a plaintiff must show three elements:

first, injury in fact; second, a close relationship with the third party whose rights he

asserts; and third, that the third party has no forum to protect its own interests. 467

U.S. at 956.

B.

Pouncy has made no showing under Rule 24(a) or Munson that he is entitled to

intervene in this action. He has no legal interest of his own in this case, and he has not

been injured by the Court’s decision. This case concerns only the validity of Petitioner’s

conviction, not Pouncy’s. Pouncy is fully capable of protecting his own interests in his

own habeas case. 

Finally, there is no basis for Pouncy to seek reconsideration on Petitioner’s

behalf.

SO ORDERED.

S/Avern Cohn

AVERN COHN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Dated: June 1, 2015

Detroit, Michigan

3

2:09-cv-13144-AC-RSW Doc # 32 Filed 06/01/15 Pg 3 of 3 Pg ID 1238