United States District Court, S.D. Texas, Houston Division
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
P. ELLISON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
case, the Court has been asked by Plaintiffs to require
improvements in prison conditions at the Wallace Pack Unit.
On June 14, 2016, the Court certified one General Class and
two subclasses. That decision is currently on appeal to the
Fifth Circuit. In the meantime, the Court has been asked to
allow intervention by individuals incarcerated at the William
B. Clements Unit in Amarillo, Texas; the Ramsey I Unit in
Brazoria, Texas; and the Connally Unit in Kenedy, Texas.
(Doc. Nos. 600, 615 & 622.) All three units are
facilities under the direction of Defendant Texas Department
of Criminal Justice (“TDCJ”). All parties in this
case are opposed to the proposed interventions. (Doc. Nos.
614, 618, 619, 621, 624, & 630.) Moreover, it is the
opinion of the Court that the proposed interventions would
unduly delay the adjudication of the original parties'
rights. All three pending Motions to Intervene are therefore
Court also finds that Ronald Wayne Johnson's motion
challenging the qualification of Plaintiffs' counsel is
without merit, and that he does not have standing to request
injunctive relief. As such, those motions are also denied.
Motions to Intervene
Wayne Johnson, Albert De La Garza, and Robert Leon Roberts
have filed motions to intervene pursuant to Rule 24 of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 24 provides:
(a) Intervention of Right. On timely motion, the court must
permit anyone to intervene who:
(1) is given an unconditional right to intervene by a federal
(2) claims an interest relating to the property or
transaction that is the subject of the action, and is so
situated that disposing of the action may as a practical
matter impair or impede the movant's ability to protect
its interest, unless existing parties adequately represent
(b) Permissive Intervention.
(1) In General. On timely motion, the court may permit anyone
to intervene who:
(A) is given a conditional right to intervene by a federal
(B) has a claim or defense that shares with the main action a
common question of law or fact.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 24. Movants have not claimed an unconditional
right to intervene under a federal statute, nor can they
claim an interest in the subject of the action sufficient for
the “intervention of right” standard under Rule
24(a)(2). The Motions to Intervene are therefore properly
considered under the guidelines for “permissive
intervention” provided by Rule 24(b).
intervention is “wholly discretionary with the
[district] court . . . even though there is a common question
of law or fact, or the requirements of Rule 24(b) are
otherwise satisfied.” Kneeland v. National
Collegiate Athletic Ass'n, 806 F.2d 1285, 1289 (5th
Cir. 1987) (quoting New Orleans Public Service, Inc. v.
United Gas Pipe Line Co., 732 F.2d 452, 470-71 (5th
Cir.) (en banc), cert denied, 469 U.S. 1019 (1984)
(internal citation omitted); Bush v. Viterna, 740
F.2d 350, 359 (5th Cir. 1984). In considering a request for
permissive intervention, it is proper to consider whether the
Movants will significantly contribute to the full development
of the underlying factual interests in the suit. United
Gas Pipe Line Co., ...