United States v. Territory of the Virgin Islands Ex Rel. DiRuzzo
60 V.I. 1004
3rd Cir.2014Background
- Gillette, an inmate at Golden Grove, seeks intervention in the CRIPA case against the Virgin Islands over inmate conditions.
- The United States filed suit in 1986; a consent decree and multiple orders aimed at remedying deficiencies were entered, with ongoing litigation through 2012–2013.
- A 2011 PLRA termination motion triggered stays and evidentiary proceedings to determine continuing need for prospective relief.
- Gillette relied on the United States’ pleadings in his habeas corpus petition, while his own intervention request argued his direct interest in facility conditions.
- The district court denied intervention as of right and permissive intervention; the court concluded the United States adequately represents Gillette’s interests, and intervention would prejudice the parties.
- On appeal, the Third Circuit affirms, holding no right to intervene and that permissive intervention would prejudice ongoing settlement efforts.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intervention as of right standard | Gillette contends he has a direct interest and impaired ability to protect it. | Government adequately represents inmates’ rights; no need for intervention. | Denied; no right to intervene because representation is adequate. |
| Adequacy of representation presumption | Gillette must rebut presumption because US's CRIPA role may diverge from his interests. | Presumption applies; US has statutory authority and role to enforce rights. | Presumption applies; Gillette failed to show compelling divergence. |
| Permissive intervention under Rule 24(b) | Gillette should be allowed to participate to address shared questions of law/fact. | Late intervention would delay and prejudice settlement; adequate representation exists. | Denied; district court did not abuse discretion due to prejudice and lack of necessity. |
Key Cases Cited
- Harris v. Pernsley, 820 F.2d 592 (3d Cir. 1987) (establishes four-part test for intervention as of right)
- Mountain Top Condo. Ass'n v. Dave Stabbert Master Builder, Inc., 72 F.3d 361 (3d Cir. 1995) (presumption of adequacy for government representation; need compelling showing to overcome)
- Kleissler v. United States Forest Serv., 157 F.3d 964 (3d Cir. 1998) (intervention justified where intervenors’ direct economic interests diverge from government policies)
- United States v. City of Los Angeles, 288 F.3d 391 (9th Cir. 2002) (intervenors may be exact constituents protected by the United States in action)
- United States v. Oregon, 839 F.2d 635 (9th Cir. 1988) (competence to intervene depends on scope of relief; distinguishes cases with broader government objectives)