Benjamin Ex Rel. Yock v. Department of Public WelfareBenjamin Ex Rel. Yock v. Department of Public Welfare
Lastly, we find the evidence sufficient to sustain Durham‘s conviction under Count Five for obstructing the internal investigation by making false statements during this same interview. For the same reasons discussed above, Durham‘s argument regarding his alleged lack of intent to obstruct the Coles investigation in the first instance is unavаiling. Regarding the sufficiency of the evidence as to Count Five, Durham was clearly aware of the ongoing internal investigation, and the jury could have inferred that he intended to provide false information in order to thwart the internal investigation. See Warshak, 631 F.3d at 325. In addition, a rational juror could have found that providing false statements would naturally and probably interfere with the ongoing internal investigation and that Durham was aware of this likelihood. See Aguilar, 515 U.S. at 599, 115 S.Ct. 2357.
Accordingly, we find that the evidence presented at trial was sufficient to permit a rational trier of fact to find that Durham was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of Counts Five and Six.
IV.
For the foregoing reasons, we will affirm Durham‘s judgment of conviction and the District Court‘s denial of his motion for a judgment of acquittal.
Mark J. Murphy, Robert W. Meek (Argued), Robin Resnick, Disability Rights Network of PA, Philadelphia, PA and Stephen F. Gold, Philadelphia, PA, for Appellees.
Lesli C. Esposito (Argued), DLA Piper, Philadelphia, PA, for Amicus Curiae Voices of the Retarded, Inc.
Carl A. Solano (Argued), Schnader Harrison Segal & Lewis, Philadelphia, PA, for Amicus Curiae Diane Solano.
BEFORE: JORDAN, GREENAWAY, JR., and STAPLETON, Circuit Judges.
OPINION OF THE COURT
STAPLETON, Circuit Judge:
Appellants-Intervenors Springstead et al. seek to intervene in this class action brought against Defendants Pennsylvania Department of Public Welfare (“DPW“) and Secretary of Public Welfare to enforce rights the Plaintiffs-Appelleеs claim to have under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA“),
I. Background
Olmstead v. L.C. ex rel. Zimring, 527 U.S. 581, 119 S.Ct. 2176, 144 L.Ed.2d 540 (1999), established that it is a violation of the ADA, the RA, and their implementing regulations to force developmentally disabled patients to reside in institutions when they аre able and willing to live in a manner more fully integrated into the community. At the same time, Olmstead and the regulations make clear that “community based treatment [cannot] be imposed on patients who do not desire it.” Id. at 602, 119 S.Ct. 2176 (citing
Plaintiffs-Appellees Benjamin et al. (“Plaintiffs“) are individuals with mental retardation who reside in intermediate care facilities for persons with mental retardation (“ICFs/MR“) operated by the DPW. They contend that the DPW‘s failure to offer community services to them and others similarly situated violates the integration mandates of the ADA and RA. Plaintiffs sought and secured cеrtification of the following class:
All persons who: (1) currently or in the future will reside in one of Pennsylvania‘s state-operated intermediate care facilities for persons with mental retardation (ICFs/MR); (2) could reside in the community with appropriate services and supports; and (3) do not or would not oppose community placement.
A7.
Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief. They recognize that ”Olmstead requires that patients eligible and desirous of community placement be discharged into community-based programs [only] if placement cаn be reasonably accommodated, taking into account the resources of the state and the needs of other persons in its care.” Frederick L. v. Dep‘t. of Pub. Welfare, 422 F.3d 151, 156-57 (3d Cir.2005) (citing Olmstead, 527 U.S. at 587, 119 S.Ct. 2176). Accordingly, by way of remedy, they seek an injunction directing the DPW, inter alia, (1) to maintain a “Planning List that consists of all state ICF/MR residents who have been identified as not opposed to discharge to community services,” (2) to promptly place “on the Planning List the named Plaintiffs and any other state ICF/MR residents identified by the ICF/MR Facility Directors as having affirmatively expressed their desire to be discharged to the community,” (3) to question “ICF/MR residents and/or their involved family or guardians” at least annually regarding their current preference in order to keep the Planning List current, and (4) beginning in fiscal year 2011-12, to “develop and implement a viable integration plan that provides community services to at least 100 individuals on the
The Springstead Intervenors (“Intervenors“) are residents of Pennsylvania ICFS/MR who would decline community placement if it were offered to them. They movеd to intervene of right and permissively under
Following the filing of this appeal, the District Court entered summary judgment in favor of Plaintiffs on the liability issue. The remedy issue remains before it.
II. Discussion
We Court review a district court‘s denial of permissive intervention and intervention of right for abuse of discretion but applies a more stringent standard to denials of intervention of right. Brody v. Spang, 957 F.2d 1108, 1115 (3d Cir.1992). We will reverse a district court‘s determination on a motion to intervene of right if the court “applied an improper legal standard or reached a decision that we are confident is incorrect.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
A. Intervention of Right
(a) Intervention of Right. On timеly motion, the court must permit anyone to intervene who:
(1) is given an unconditional right to intervene by a federal statute; or
(2) claims an interest relating to the property or transaction that is the subject of the action, and is so situated that disposing of the action may as a рractical matter impair or impede the movant‘s ability to protect its interest, unless existing parties adequately represent that interest.
A petitioner seeking to intervene of right “must establish that: (1) the application for intervention is timely; (2) the applicant has a sufficient interest in the litigation; (3) the interest may be affected or impaired, as a practical matter, by the disposition of the action; and (4) the interest is not adequately represented by an existing party in the litigation.” In re Cmty. Bank of N. Va., 418 F.3d 277, 314 (3d Cir.2005) (quoting Harris v. Pernsley, 820 F.2d 592, 596 (3d Cir.1987)).2 The claimed interest in the litigation must be one that “is specific [tо those seeking to intervene], is capable of definition, and will be directly affected in a substantially concrete fashion by the relief sought.” Kleissler v. U.S. Forest Service, 157 F.3d 964, 972 (3d Cir.1998). “[T]he polestar for evaluating a claim for intervention is always whether the proposed intervenor‘s interest is direct or remotе.” Id.
Intervenors insist that their interest in remaining in their current institutional setting is clearly sufficient to warrant intervention. We agree with the District Court, however, that Intervenors’ interest in maintaining their current form of care is not directly in jeopardy in this litigation. The current parties have deliberately defined the class and the relief sought so that Intervenors’ right to choose institutional treatment would not be affected.
The District Court made its intent clear. The class it certified expressly excludes all current and future residents of ICFS/MR who oppose, or would at any relevant time in the future oppose, community placement.3 It therefore excludes Intervenors, and they will not be personally bound by anything that is decided in this litigation. It follows that, if the DPW should threaten in the future to coerce them into leaving their current institutions, Intervenors would be free to file their own suit and litigate whether they have a legally enforceable right to remain in the institution where they currently reside.4
This does not end the matter, however. Intervenors insist that even if they “are not current or putativе class members, their interest is likely to be affected as a practical matter by the outcome of the lawsuit because the relief sought by Plaintiffs is likely to result in closure of ICFs/MR.” Appellants’ Br. at 28. Intervenors do not suggest that there is a danger that any remedy afforded to Plaintiffs in this aсtion will include a requirement that an ICF/MR be closed. Rather, they fear that budget constraints will cause the DPW to allocate its resources in a different manner if it is required by this suit to satisfy its obligations under the ADA and that this may result in its closing one or more ICFs/MR.
While it is, of course, possible that providing additional community placements will occasion some reallocation of the limited resources of the DPW, it is not possible to determine at this point whether that reallocation will result in the closing 3 4
Where a party has an interest in property over which thе court has taken jurisdiction, and the party has an interest in “being heard with respect to the disposition of [a particular] fund[,] ... such an interest is sufficient to support an applicant‘s intervention as of right.” Mountain Top Condominium Ass‘n v. Dave Stabbert Master Builder, Inc., 72 F.3d 361, 368 (3d Cir. 1995). Here, the court has nоt taken control of DPW funds and Intervenors do not have a legal right to particular funds. They may have a right to certain benefits from the state, but not a right to a particular fund.
In Harris, we held that a District Attorney lacked the right to intervene in a suit seeking a cap on the prison populаtion where the DA argued such a ceiling would limit his ability to carry out his duties as a law enforcement officer. 820 F.2d at 601. Because the DA did not administer the prison, and the consent decree placing a ceiling on the prison population would only tangentially affect his ability to prosecute, we held that he had no right to intervene. See Kleissler, 157 F.3d at 969–70. Similarly here, the relief sought by Plaintiffs—that the DPW offer a choice of community placement to ICF/MR patients who do not oppose such placement—will only tangentially affect the rights of those who are opposed. Intervenors therefore are not entitled to intervene as their interests will not be directly affected by the relief sought.5
III.
Because intervention of right is not available here, the District Court did not abuse its discretion in finding that Intervenors are also not entitled to permissive intervеntion. See Brody, 957 F.2d at 1124 (“[I]f intervention of right is not available, the same reasoning would indicate that it would not be an abuse of discretion to deny permissive intervention.“).
IV.
For the foregoing reasons, we will affirm the District Court‘s denial of Intervenors’ application to intervene permissively and оf right.