Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Nolley v. Nelson

United States District Court, M.D. Georgia, Macon Division

May 10, 2017

DARNELL NOLLEY, Plaintiff,
v.
CYNTHIA NELSON, et al., Defendants.

          ORDER

          STEPHEN HYLES UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.

         Presently pending before the Court is Waseem Daker's motion to intervene (ECF No. 109), filed on April 20, 2017. On April 27, 2017, Defendants Bobbitt, Bostick, Giles, McLaughlin, and Ridley filed a joint response to Daker's motion. (ECF No. 111.) Daker filed a reply on May 8, 2017. (ECF No. 113.) Daker's motion is ripe for review. For the reasons discussed herein, Daker's motion is denied.

         BACKGROUND

         Plaintiff Darnell Nolley filed this § 1983 action on March 1, 2015. Compl. 7, ECF No. 1. Though the case was initially dismissed, Plaintiff was granted leave to file a post-judgment motion to amend his complaint-salvaging his claims. Plaintiff's April 21, 2015 Amended Complaint (ECF No. 12) is the controlling complaint of this case. Order 3, June 1, 2015, ECF No. 11. Defendants filed a pre-answer motion to dismiss (ECF No. 21) on July 27, 2015. Pursuant to the ruling on that motion to dismiss, only Plaintiff's Fourteenth Amendment claims against Defendants in their individual capacities for nominal damages were allowed to proceed. Order 4, March 29, 2016, ECF No. 54. Defendants filed their Answer (ECF No. 57) on April 12, 2016. The discovery period ended almost eight months ago, on September 21, 2016. Order 1, Aug. 22, 2016, ECF No. 80. Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 86) on October 21, 2016. On December 19, 2016, Plaintiff Nolley filed his response. (ECF No. 93.) Defendants filed a reply on January 26, 2017. (ECF No. 95.) Discovery is closed and the pending dispositive motion is fully briefed and ripe for ruling, yet Daker filed the instant motion to intervene on April 17, 2017-some two years after the initiation of this lawsuit.

         DISCUSSION

         I. Intervention of Right

         Daker asserts that he is entitled of intervention of right. The Court disagrees. Intervention of right occurs where an individual files a timely motion and

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 practical matter impair or impede the movant's ability to protect its interest, unless existing parties adequately represent that interest.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(a)(2). Daker clearly does not meet this standard. Ignoring any discussion of the timelineness of his motion-filed some two years after the action, after the close of discovery and the time to file dispositive motions-Daker seeks wholly different relief, for different claims, based on different facts and different legal issues than Plaintiff. He can, in no way, claim an actual legal interest relating to the property or transaction that is the subject of this action. Plaintiff's claims arise from his allegation that his due process rights were violated when he was purportedly denied a proper hearing before being placed in Tier II confinement. Daker challenges a myriad of his conditions of confinement. In fact, Daker has filed his own lawsuits asserting various constitutional violations, and those are the proper vehicle for litigating his claims. Daker has no intervention as a matter of right under the Federal Rules.

         II. Permissive Intervention

         For the reasons discussed herein, permissive intervention is inappropriate and the Court declines to exercise its discretion to grant the same. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(b). Daker attempts to use permissive intervention to circumvent the PLRA three strike and exhaustion requirements. Such requirements are part of Congress's legitimate effort to curtail abusive litigation and this Court will not permit Daker to usurp Congress's authority to do so.

         A. Three Strikes

         The “three strikes” provision of the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”) prohibits a prisoner from bringing a civil action in forma pauperis

if the prisoner has, on 3 or more prior occasions, while incarcerated or detained in any facility, brought an action or appeal in a court of the United States that was dismissed on the grounds that it is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.