U.S. v. State of Or.

• Decision Date: 19 February 1988
• Docket Number: No. 87-3671,87-3671
• Citation: 839 F.2d 635
• Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. STATE OF OREGON, et al., Defendants-Appellees, v. RESIDENTS OF FAIRVIEW TRAINING CENTER; Ronald Brelsford; Plaintiffs-Intervenors, and Sonya Fryer; Jorgina Oliver; Ronald Lee; Thelma Jackson; individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Intervenors-Appellants.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit

Page 635

839 F.2d 635

10 Fed.R.Serv.3d 858

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. STATE OF OREGON, et al., Defendants-Appellees, v. RESIDENTS OF FAIRVIEW TRAINING CENTER; Ronald Brelsford;

Plaintiffs-Intervenors,

and

Sonya Fryer; Jorgina Oliver; Ronald Lee; Thelma Jackson;

individually and on behalf of all others similarly

situated, Plaintiffs-Intervenors-Appellants.

No. 87-3671.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued Dec. 11, 1987.

Submitted Dec. 18, 1987.

Decided Feb. 19, 1988.

William Bradford Reynolds, Asst. Atty. Gen., David K. Flynn, Louise A. Lerner (argued), Dept. of Justice, Washington, D.C., for plaintiff-appellee.

Linda DeVries Grimms, Oregon State Atty. General's Office, Salem, Or., for defendants-appellees.

David B. Hatton, Oregon Advocacy Center, Portland, Or., for plaintiffs-intervenors-appellants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Oregon.

Before WRIGHT, ANDERSON and SCHROEDER, Circuit Judges.

SCHROEDER, Circuit Judge:

The appellants are residents of the Fairview Training Center. The State of Oregon operates the facility. The conditions at that institution are presently the subject of a law suit filed by the United States government against the State of Oregon claiming failure to provide minimally adequate training, medical care, sanitation and trained staff. The lawsuit is authorized by the provisions of the Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act ("CRIPA"), 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1997 et seq. The appellants seek to intervene in that litigation and appeal from the district court's order denying them the right or permission to intervene. We reverse the district court because we hold that the appellants have satisfied the requirements of Rule 24(a) Fed.R.Civ.P. for intervention as of right.

The United States filed its action on July 28, 1986 pursuant to section 1997a(a) of CRIPA which provides that the Attorney General may sue to secure "equitable relief ... to insure the minimum corrective measures necessary to insure the full enjoyment of [federal constitutional and statutory] rights" by institutionalized persons. 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1997a(a). The statute was enacted in 1980 following decisions of this and other courts that the United States needed express statutory authority before it could seek relief vindicating constitutional rights of the mentally retarded. See, e.g., United States v. Mattson, 600 F.2d 1295 (9th Cir.1979). The Conference Report stated that

[i]t should be emphasized that ... the Attorney General's authority extends to initiating suit "for or in the name of the United States," in order to represent the national interest in securing constitutionally adequate care for institutionalized citizens. As a representative of the United States, the Attorney General does not directly represent any institutionalized plaintiffs, and the authority granted him is in no way intended to preclude, delay or prejudice private litigants from enforcing any cause of action they may have under ... law.

H.Conf.Rep. No. 96-897, 96th Cong., 2d Sess. 13, reprinted in 1980 U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News 787, 837. Both the language and the history of the statute show that Congress did not intend by its enactment to restrict in any way the authority of the district courts to adjudicate claims brought by or on behalf of the institutionalized persons themselves. The statute itself provides that:

The provisions of this [Act] shall in no way expand or restrict the authority of parties other than the United States to enforce the legal rights which they may have pursuant to existing law with regard to institutionalized persons.

42 U.S.C. Sec. 1997j ("section 12").

Whether or not the appellants can intervene in this action thus depends solely upon whether or not they meet the requirements for intervention under Rule 24, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Though they sought to intervene both as a matter of right or, in the alternative, with the court's permission, we need deal only with their contention that they are entitled to intervene as a matter of right. The rule in that regard provides:

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 he is so situated that the disposition of the action may as a practical matter impair or impede his ability to protect that interest, unless the applicant's interest is adequately represented by existing parties.

Fed.R.Civ.P. 24(a).

We review the district court decision on intervention as of right de novo. In re Benny, 791 F.2d 712, 721 (9th Cir.1986). We construe the rule broadly in favor of applicants for intervention. United States v. Stringfellow, 783 F.2d 821, 826 (9th Cir.1986), opinion vacated and remanded on other grounds sub nom., Stringfellow v. Concerned Neighbors in Action, --- U.S. ----, 107 S.Ct. 1177, 94 L.Ed.2d 389 (1987); Washington State Building & Construction Trades Council v. Spellman, 684 F.2d 627, 630 (9th Cir.1982), cert. denied, 461 U.S. 913, 103 S.Ct. 1891, 77 L.Ed.2d 282 (1983). We have established a practical test which applicants must meet in order to qualify for intervention:

(1) the applicant's motion must be timely; (2) the applicant must assert an interest relating to the property or transaction which is the subject of the action; (3) the applicant must be so situated that without intervention the disposition of the action may, as a practical matter, impair or impede his ability to protect that interest; and (4) the applicant's interest must be inadequately represented by the other parties.

Sagebrush Rebellion, Inc. v. Watt, 713 F.2d 525, 527 (9th Cir.1983) (quoting Smith v. Pangilinan, 651 F.2d 1320, 1323-24 (9th Cir.1981)). The parties agree that the application is timely. There is also no question that the applicants have an interest relating to the facility which is the subject of the action; they live in it. The dispute is with the third and fourth requirements for intervention as of right. We must decide whether the disposition of this lawsuit may affect the ability of these applicants to protect their interests, and whether their interests are being adequately represented by the United States.

We turn first to the issue of adequate representation. To evaluate the contentions of the parties it is necessary to understand their respective interests. In their complaint for intervention, the applicants set forth claims for injunctive and other relief affording residents of the facility access to better conditions in the facility, sufficient training in self-care skills and sufficient community-based programs to insure freedom from unnecessary institutionalization.

The government has limited its complaint to seeking injunctive relief for the more outrageous conditions existing within the facility. Common to both complaints, however, is the goal of vindicating the constitutional rights of Fairview's residents. The dispute here reflects the parties' differing views concerning the nature and scope of remedial relief.

We have held that in determining whether rights are being adequately represented, it is appropriate to examine whether existing parties' interests are such that they will make all of the arguments the applicants would make. Blake v. Pallan, 554 F.2d 947, 954-55 (9th Cir.1977). We have denied intervention as of right where it was clear that the existing...