Dubarry v. Capra
- Kenneth Karas
- 7:21-cv-05487
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Dubarry v. Capra, Judge Karas denied Jeremy Zielinski’s motion to intervene to challenge dicta about JPay’s status as a state actor.
Jeremy Zielinski could not intervene in the action to challenge the court’s discussion of JPay’s state-actor status. The order did not alter the court’s earlier dismissal of the plaintiffs’ action.
What happened
In Dubarry v. Capra, the court had previously dismissed the plaintiffs’ case without prejudice after finding they had not stated First and Fourteenth Amendment claims. Jeremy Zielinski then asked to join the case for the limited purpose of challenging the court’s discussion of whether JPay was a state actor.
Zielinski said he had an interest in his own prisoner-email rights and worried that the court’s discussion could make it harder for him to obtain relief in his separate case. The court explained that its discussion of JPay’s state-actor status was not necessary to the dismissal and would not bind other courts in the district. It found that disagreement with that discussion, without an interest in the case’s property or transaction, was not enough to justify intervention.
The court denied the motion to intervene. Judge Kenneth M. Karas said Zielinski could instead argue in his own pending case why he disagreed with the earlier decision.
The detailed version
- Dubarry v. Capra · No. 7:21-cv-05487
- Kenneth Karas
- Dec. 22, 2022
Background
On September 27, 2022, the court granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss the action without prejudice. The court had found that the plaintiffs failed to state claims under the First and Fourteenth Amendments. It also briefly discussed other arguments, including whether JPay was a state actor, but stated that this discussion was not necessary to dismiss the complaint and was intended only to help frame possible future pleadings and briefing.
On November 23, 2022, Jeremy Zielinski moved to intervene under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a)(2) or 24(b)(1)(B). He sought to join the case for the limited purpose of asking the court to vacate the portion of its decision concerning JPay’s state-actor status. Zielinski said he had an interest in his own rights concerning prisoner emails and that an incorrect decision could encourage JPay and the New York Department of Corrections and Community Supervision and make relief harder to obtain in his separate case. He also acknowledged that he was not challenging the plaintiffs’ no-nudity policy.
Court’s Analysis
Intervention of right under Rule 24(a)(2) requires a timely motion, an interest connected to the property or transaction involved in the case, a risk that the case could impair the applicant’s ability to protect that interest, and inadequate representation by the existing parties. The court explained that the claimed interest must be direct, substantial, and legally protectable; a remote, contingent, general, or indefinite interest is not enough. Permissive intervention under Rule 24(b)(1)(B) is discretionary.
The court concluded that Zielinski had not shown a legally protectable interest connected to this action. He did not challenge the operative portions of the court’s decision or assert an interest in the property or transaction involved in the case. Instead, the court understood him to be seeking permission to correct potentially adverse reasoning before filing or pursuing his own similar case. The court held that a person has no independent legally protectable interest in collaterally attacking potentially adverse precedent. It noted that Zielinski could argue in his own pending case why he disagreed with the Dubarry decision.
Disposition
The court denied the motion to intervene.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.