Chavez v. County of Santa Clara

Background

This case is a certified class action involving certain people who were or will be Santa Clara County jail inmates during specified periods. The claims concern the provision of constitutional medical, dental, and mental-health care; unnecessary or excessive force; excessive solitary confinement; and discrimination against inmates with certain non-mobility disabilities. The parties settled the case, and the court entered a Consent Decree and Remedial Plan. The case was later administratively closed, although the court retained limited jurisdiction for a limited period to enforce the decree.

Howard Herships filed two motions without a lawyer: a motion to intervene and a motion for civil contempt. Herships said he had been incarcerated at the Santa Clara County Jail from January 2020 through March 2020 and had been denied access to his hearing aids. He also alleged that the County was not providing class-action notices inside the jails, asked that class counsel be removed and replaced through the Northern District’s Pro Bono Panel, and sought to act for himself and other absent class members.

His contempt motion cited the alleged denial of hearing aids and diabetes medication, an injury he said he suffered in a vehicle operated by the jail during transport, and the alleged denial of notices. The opinion states that Herships had presented these issues in a separate pending lawsuit before Judge Donato, including allegations about jail notices, hearing aids, the transport-vehicle incident, and diabetes medication.

Legal Standard

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24 provides two relevant forms of intervention. Intervention as of right is required when the rule’s conditions are met, including when a person claims an interest related to the case and resolving the case could practically impair the person’s ability to protect that interest. Permissive intervention allows a court, in its discretion, to let someone join when that person has a claim or defense sharing a common legal or factual question with the main action. Courts also consider whether existing parties adequately represent the person’s interests, whether intervention would delay the case, and whether the person would significantly help develop the factual record.

The court also explained that people who represent themselves generally cannot serve as adequate class representatives under Rule 23(a), with an exception when a statute authorizes the person to prosecute the action for others. The court concluded that exception did not apply here.

Court’s Analysis

The court found that Herships did not meet the requirements for intervention as of right. Although he claimed an interest related to the case, he did not show that resolving the action would impair his ability to protect that interest. The court gave two reasons: Herships had not shown that class counsel could not adequately protect his interests, and his separate pending lawsuit addressed the same issues and would not affect his ability to pursue those interests there. The court also noted that Herships had not explained why the class counsel, who already represented him as a class member in this case, could not protect his interests.

The court likewise declined to allow permissive intervention. It acknowledged that Herships had claims sharing a legal or factual question with the main action, but found that his interests were adequately represented, that allowing him to join could prolong or unduly delay the litigation, and that he had not shown that his experience and knowledge would significantly add to the factual development of the case.

Disposition

The court denied Herships’s motion to intervene. It denied his motion for civil contempt as moot. The opinion does not state an additional disposition of the underlying class claims.