United States v. State of California

MEMORANDUM

Daniel James Trebas, together with other residents of the Atascadero State Hospital (“Trebas”), moved, pro se, to intervene in a suit by the United States against state officials responsible for California’s mental health services. The district court denied the motion to intervene as untimely-

We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm. We review de novo the denial of a party’s motion to intervene as a matter of right, except for the issue of timeliness, which we review for an abuse of discretion. NAACP v. New York, 413 U.S. 345, 366 , 93 S.Ct. 2591 , 37 L.Ed.2d 648 (1973); Cnty. of Orange v. Air California, 799 F.2d 535 , 537 (9th Cir.1986).

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a) provides that “[o]n a timely motion, the court must permit” the intervention of an applicant who “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 that interest.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 24(a)(2). Although Rule 24 is construed broadly in favor of…