Oregon Advocacy Center v. Mink, 3:02-cv-00339

Marion County, acting as amicus curiae, has repeatedly sought to intervene in ongoing litigation about mental health restoration services in Oregon.
The base case, originating in 2002, involves enforcement of a permanent injunction against the Oregon Health Authority and the Oregon State Hospital regarding treatment of individuals in the criminal justice system found incompetent to stand trial.
The County argues that recent court orders have significantly increased its burdens related to community restoration services and resource allocation.
The County's prior two motions to intervene were denied (one affirmed by the Ninth Circuit; one currently on appeal), mostly on timeliness grounds and potential prejudice to parties.
The County's third intervention request claimed that a pending contempt motion by Disability Rights Oregon (DRO), seeking monetary sanctions and changes to hospital admissions/discharges, warranted intervention to protect the County's interests.
The Court again denied intervention, finding the motion was untimely, prejudicial to existing parties, and not justified by any new, materially changed circumstances.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Marion County's third motion to intervene is timely	No, intervention comes very late and no new circumstances justify it	No position	The motion is untimely under the relevant factors
Whether the contempt motion constitutes changed circumstances justifying intervention	No, similar contempt and sanction motions have occurred since 2019	No position	No, DRO’s motion does not create sufficient change to warrant intervention
Whether intervention would prejudice existing parties	Yes, it would delay and disrupt negotiated enforcement of the injunction	No, because County seeks to limit its participation	Yes, allowing intervention would prejudice plaintiffs and disrupt case balance
Whether the County’s interests are already adequately represented	Yes, County has functioned as amicus and could continue to do so	County argues its interests are uniquely affected and not protected	Court finds County’s interests have not changed, and amicus status suffices

Wilderness Soc'y v. U.S. Forest Serv., 630 F.3d 1173 (9th Cir. 2011) (sets standard for intervention of right under Rule 24(a)(2))
United States v. Alisal Water Corp., 370 F.3d 915 (9th Cir. 2004) (courts decide intervention by practical, equitable considerations, but timeliness remains required)
Calvert v. Huckins, 109 F.3d 636 (9th Cir. 1997) (postjudgment intervention is generally disfavored)
United States v. Oregon, 913 F.2d 576 (9th Cir. 1990) (untimeliness alone defeats motions to intervene)