Oregon Advocacy Center v. Patrick Allen

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: May 10, 2024
• Docket: 23-35516
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAY 10 2024 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

OREGON ADVOCACY CENTER; et al., No. 23-35516

Plaintiffs-Appellees, D.C. No. 3:02-cv-00339-MO

v. MEMORANDUM* PATRICK ALLEN, Director of the Department of Human Services, in his official capacity; DOLORES MATTEUCCI, Superintendent of Oregon State Hospital, in her official capacity,

Defendants-Appellees,

v.

MARION COUNTY, Proposed Intervenor,

Movant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Oregon Michael W. Mosman, District Judge, Presiding

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. Submitted May 8, 2024** Seattle, Washington

Before: McKEOWN, W. FLETCHER, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.

Marion County (“the County”) appeals the district court’s order denying its

motion to intervene as a matter of right under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

24(a) and permissively under Rule 24(b). The district court denied the motion as

meritless and untimely. We affirm.

The parties are familiar with the facts in this case, and we recount them only

as necessary to explain our decision.

1. We review for abuse of discretion a denial of a motion to intervene based

on untimeliness. Callahan v. Brookdale Senior Living Cmtys., Inc., 42 F.4th 1013,

1019 (9th Cir. 2022). A district court abuses its discretion when it “bases its

decision on an erroneous legal standard or on clearly erroneous findings of fact.”

United States v. Alisal Water Corp., 370 F.3d 915, 921 (9th Cir. 2004) (quoting

Smith v. Marsh, 194 F.3d 1045, 1049 (9th Cir. 1999)).

The district court did not rely on an erroneous legal standard or clearly

erroneous findings of fact when it denied the County’s motion. All three factors

used by this Court to evaluate timeliness—the stage of the proceeding, prejudice to

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 2 other parties, and reason for and length of delay—weigh against the County’s

intervention. See Smith, 194 F.3d at 1050. The County sought to intervene at a

late stage in the litigation, more than two decades after the 2002 injunction, four

years after the start of contempt proceedings, and nine months after the district

court issued its order implementing the expert’s recommendations in September

2022. The district court acted well within its discretion when it denied the

County’s motion as untimely.

2. Because a motion to intervene under Rule 24 must be timely, we need not

decide whether the County meets the other requirements for intervention. League

of United Latin Am. Citizens v. Wilson, 131 F.3d 1297, 1302 (9th Cir. 1997) (citing

United States v. Oregon, 913 F.2d 576, 588 (9th Cir. 1990)).

AFFIRMED.