Opinion ID: 173060
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Herriman City

Text: In a cross-appeal, Herbert argues Herriman City is a political subdivision of the state and lacks both standing and the authority to bring a Fourteenth Amendment equal protection claim against Utah or its officers. The district court agreed, but nevertheless allowed Herriman City to intervene under Rule 24(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Swensen, 2008 WL 723725, at . We find the district court correctly determined Herriman City lacked authority to bring an equal protection challenge, but we also conclude the district court erred in permitting Herriman City to intervene. First, the district court correctly held Herriman City may not challenge the constitutionality of a state statute under the Fourteenth Amendment. See Rural Water Dist. No. 1 v. City of Wilson, 243 F.3d 1263, 1274 (10th Cir.2001) (noting that because they are creatures of the state, political subdivisions possess no rights independent of those expressly provided to them by the state) (quotation omitted); see also Branson Sch. Dist. RE-82 v. Romer, 161 F.3d 619, 628 (10th Cir. 1998); Hous. Auth. of Kaw Tribe v. City of Ponca City, 952 F.2d 1183, 1188 (10th Cir.1991). Likewise, a political subdivision may not challenge the validity of a fellow political subdivision's actions under the Fourteenth Amendment, unless such a suit is expressly authorized. See Kaw Tribe, 952 F.2d at 1190. Because suits against state officials in their official capacities are no different than suits against the state itself, see Will v. Mich. Dep't of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 71, 109 S.Ct. 2304, 105 L.Ed.2d 45 (1989), that logic applies equally to Herbert and Swensen. Herriman City thus lacks both independent standing and the authority to bring this Fourteenth Amendment equal protection claim. Second, although the district court held Herriman City had neither rights to protect under the Fourteenth Amendment nor the authority to bring suit, it nevertheless permitted the city to intervene under Rule 24(b). We review such a determination for an abuse of discretion. See Alameda Water & Sanitation Dist. v. Browner, 9 F.3d 88, 90 (10th Cir.1993). Herbert argues the district court abused its discretion because, as a matter of law, Herriman City does not satisfy Rule 24(b)'s requirements. See DeJulius v. New England Health Care Employees Pension Fund, 429 F.3d 935, 943 (10th Cir.2005) (stating a district court abuses its discretion when it bases its decision on an erroneous conclusion of law). In particular, he asserts, Herriman City lacks a claim that shares with the main action a common question of law or fact. Fed. R.Civ.P. 24(b)(1)(B) (emphasis added). Herbert contends Herriman City cannot possibly have a claim in common with the other plaintiffs because, as explained above, Herriman City does not have rights protected under the Fourteenth Amendment. Because Herriman City would not be able to bring a claim as a plaintiff, he concludes, the district court abused its discretion in permitting the city to intervene. We agree that Herriman City should not have been permitted to intervene. It is true our case law supports the view that a prospective intervenor need not have its own standing to intervene under Rule 24(b). See, e.g., City of Colo. Springs v. Climax Molybdenum Co., 587 F.3d 1071, 1079 (10th Cir.2009) ([P]arties seeking to intervene under Rule 24(a) or (b) need not establish independent Article III standing so long as another party with constitutional standing on the same side as the intervenor remains in the case. [S]uch piggyback standing is permissible.) (internal citations and punctuation omitted). It is also true the words claim or defense, as they appear in Rule 24(b), should not be strictly interpreted so as to preclude permissive intervention. See Nuesse v. Camp, 385 F.2d 694, 704 (D.C.Cir.1967) ([I]ntervention has been allowed in situations where the existence of any nominate `claim' or `defense' is difficult to find.) (internal quotation marks omitted). Nevertheless, to intervene under Rule 24(b) the proposed intervenor must have a claim or defense that shares at least some aspect with a claim or defense presented in the main action. Here, because the Fourteenth Amendment claim Herriman City asserts is foreclosed, Herriman City has no claim and thus cannot satisfy Rule 24(b)'s requirements. This being the case, however, nothing would prevent the district court from allowing Herriman City to participate as an amicus curiae and present its views in that manner. Accordingly, while we recognize that the district court's discretion under Rule 24(b) is very broad, see United States v. Hooker Chem. & Plastics Corp., 749 F.2d 968, 990 n. 19 (2d Cir.1984), we find that the district court should not have allowed Herriman City to participate as an intervenor against the state.