Siofele

MEMORANDUM ***

Joseph Siofele appeals the district court’s denial of his motion to intervene in a related civil case, Bonnichsen v. United States, in the United States District Court for the District of Oregon (District Court Civil Case No. 96-1481-JE). The district court denied Sieofele’s motion to intervene on the basis that it was untimely. Siofele appeals, contending that any delay submitting his motion to intervene was justified and that the other parties were not prejudiced by his delay. We review for abuse of discretion. Cabazon Band of Mission Indians v. Wilson, 124 F.3d 1050, 1061 (9th Cir.1997).

Intervention is governed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a). In applying Rule 24(a), we have noted:

Kootenai Tribe v. Veneman, 313 F.3d 1094 , 1107-08 (9th Cir.2002). We have also held that “if we find that the motion to intervene was not timely, [we] need not reach any of the remaining elements of Rule 24.” League of United Latin Am. Citizens v. Wilson 131 F.3d 1297 , 1302 (9th Cir.1997) (alteration in original) (internal quotation marks omitted). In evaluating timeliness, we consider “(1) the stage of the proceeding at which an applicant seeks to intervene; (2) the…