260 F.3d 587 (6th Cir. 2001), 00-5342, United States v State

Docket Nº:00-5342, 6514
Citation:260 F.3d 587
Party Name:United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, Community Rehabilitation Agencies of Tennessee, Inc., Proposed Intervenor-Appellant, People First of Tennessee, Intervenor-Appellee, v. State of Tennessee, Defendant-Appellee. Page 588 People First of Tennessee, on behalf of its members; Bonnie Chaffee, by her next friend, Crystal Goodman; Dowell Harr
Case Date:August 08, 2001
Court:United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 587

260 F.3d 587 (6th Cir. 2001)

United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,

Community Rehabilitation Agencies of Tennessee, Inc., Proposed Intervenor-Appellant,

People First of Tennessee, Intervenor-Appellee,

v.

State of Tennessee, Defendant-Appellee.

Page 588

People First of Tennessee, on behalf of its members; Bonnie Chaffee, by her next friend, Crystal Goodman; Dowell Harris, by his next friend, Rocky Akin; Effie Estelle Pippin, by her next friend, Frances Hamblen; Sandra Jo Proctor, by her next friend, Evelyn McCormack; Cynthia Dawn Sommerville, by her parents and natural guardians, Jeff and Kathy Sommerville; Kevin Troupe, by his next friend, Charles Hall; Juanita Wright, by her next friend, William A. Goodman, Jr., Mary Ann Avery, by her next friend, Jason Elam; Audriniece Hollister, by her next friend, Ethyl Ervie; Kenneth Lee; Eddie Jones; Larry Wayne Vaughn; Charles Wilhoite; Carolyn Britt; Rebecca Workman; Jenny Belle Greenwood; David Balthrop; Terry Beaty; United States of America, Plaintiffs-Appellees,

v.

Clover Bottom Developmental Center; Don Sundquist, in his official capacity as Governor of the State of Tennessee; Julie Bratcher, in her official capacity as Superintendent of Clover Bottom Developmental Center; Tennessee Department of Mental Health and Mental Retardation; Tennessee Department of Health; Rusty Seibert, in his official capacity as Assistant Commissioner of TennCare; Comcare, Inc.; Fredia S. Wadley, M.D., in her official capacity as Commissioner of Health; Greene Valley Developmental Center; Nat T. Winston Developmental Center; O. Stephen Roth, in his official capacity as Superintendent of Clover Bottom Developmental Center; Robert Erb, in his official capacity as Superintendent of the Greene Valley Developmental Center; Pete Davidson; Ben Dishman; Thomas Sullivan; John Ferguson, in his official capacity as Commissioner of Finance and Administration, Defendants-Appellees,

Community Rehabilitation Agencies of Tennessee (CMRA), Proposed Intervenor-Appellant.

Nos. 00-5342, 6514

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit

August 8, 2001

Argued: April 27, 2001

Page 589

[Copyrighted Material Omitted]

Page 590

William M. Barrick, WEED, HUBBARD, BERRY & DOUGHTY, Nashville, Tennessee, for Appellants.

Judith A. Gran, PUBLIC INTEREST LAW CENTER OF PHILADELPHIA, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, Dianne Stamey Dycus, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, Nashville, Tennessee, Kevin K. Russell, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, CIVIL RIGHTS DIVISION, Washington, D.C., for Appellees.

Before: NELSON and BATCHELDER, Circuit Judges; FEIKENS, District Judge. [*]

OPINION

FEIKENS, District Judge.

The above captioned cases have been consolidated for purposes of this appeal. Community Rehabilitation Agencies of Tennessee (CMRA) appeals the decisions of the two district courts that denied its petitions to intervene as a matter of right pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a). Because CMRA's petitions are untimely and it has not advanced any substantial right to intervene, its appeals are denied.

Page 591

I. BACKGROUND

CMRA is an association of nonprofit agencies that provide services to retarded persons and those with mental disabilities in community placements. These services include case management, residential medical support, supported living, transportation, day services, and other services. CMRA represents the interests of the community-based service provider industry in legislative, executive, and judicial matters. CMRA has 75 members, including most of the community agencies in the State of Tennessee. The vast majority of these community agencies is nonprofit, formed in local communities, and receives funding from the State and federal government.

CMRA appeals the decisions of Judge Robert L. Echols in People First of Tennessee v. Clover Bottom Developmental Center and Judge Jon P. McCalla in United States v. State of Tennessee, that denied its motions to intervene in the present litigation. 1 The two cases have been consolidated for purposes of this appeal. The underlying lawsuits were brought by the United States and private plaintiffs against the State of Tennessee regarding the operation of its mental health system. In each case, CMRA alleged in its petition that the State of Tennessee had violated the constitutional and statutory rights of individuals who are mentally retarded and developmentally disabled. It attempted to intervene as of right and permissively in both cases pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a) and 24(b). CMRA only appeals the decisions that denied them the ability to intervene as of right pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a).

We will rely on the ample factual background provided in previous opinions in these two cases to describe the events leading up to CMRA's attempt to intervene. See United States v. State of Tennessee, 181 F.3d 105 (Table), 1999 WL 357785 (6th Cir. 1999); People First of Tenn. v. Arlington Developmental Ctr., 145 F.3d 1332 (Table), 1998 WL 246146 (6th Cir. 1998); United States v. State of Tennessee, 925 F.Supp. 1292 (W.D. Tenn. 1995); People First of Tenn. v. Arlington Developmental Ctr., 878 F.Supp. 97 (W.D. Tenn. 1992).

II. ANALYSIS

CMRA contends that it was improperly denied the right to intervene in the two cases pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a). Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a), an outsider may intervene as of right:

Upon timely application anyone shall be permitted to intervene in an action ... when the applicant claims an interest relating to the property or transaction which is the subject of the action and the applicant is so situated that the disposition of...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP