Preston Marshall v. John Huffman, IV

MEMORANDUM

Kevin B. Williams appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying his motion to intervene in a copyright infringement action. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo the denial of intervention as of right, and for an abuse of discretion the denial of permissive intervention. Prete v. Bradbury, 438 F.3d 949 , 953-54 & n. 6 (9th Cir.2006). We affirm in part and dismiss in part.

The district court properly denied Williams’ motion for intervention as of right under Fed.R.Civ.P. 24(a)(2) because Williams had other means of protecting his stated interest. See California ex rel. Lockyer v. United States, 450 F.3d 436, 440, 442 (9th Cir.2006) (setting forth four-part test for determining intervention as of right, and explaining that the proposed intervenors’ interests might not be impaired if they have other means to protect them); United States v. Alisal Water Corp., 370 F.3d 915, 919 (9th Cir.2004) (“The party seeking to intervene bears the burden of showing that all the requirements for intervention have been met.”).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Williams’ motion for permissive intervention because Williams…