Buy This Entire Record For
Piekkola v. Klimek
United States District Court, D. South Dakota, Southern Division
October 17, 2016
MAX PIEKKOLA, Plaintiff,
JSH KLIMEK, Unit Manager, Mike urfee State Prison, individual and official capacities; TAMMY DEJONG, Unit Coordinator, Mike Durfee State Prison, individual and official capacities; TRAVIS TJEERDSMA, Manager, Mike Durfee State Prison, individual and official capacities; KELLY TJEERDSMA, Corporal, Mike Durfee State Prison, individual and official capacities; DUSTIN TJEERDSMA, Correctional Officer, Mike Durfee State Prison, individual and official capacities;LEE KAUFENBERG, Special Security Captain, Mike Durfee State Prison, individual and official capacities; LYLE STOCK, Sergeant, Mike Durfee State Prison, individual and official capacities; TAMMY DOYLE, Unit Manager at Mike Durfee State Prison, in her individual and official capacities; and STEVE REYNOLDS, previous supervisor of the automotive program, Mike Durfee State Prison, individual and official capacities, Defendants.
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO INTERVENE
E. SCHREIER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
for intervention, Karri Reynolds, moves to intervene as an
interested party. Docket 66. Defendants oppose the motion.
Docket 67. For the reasons set forth below, the Karri
Reynolds' motion to intervene is granted.
September 21, 2015, Max Piekkola, an inmate at Mike Durfee
State Prison, filed a complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Docket 1. In his original and amended complaint, Piekkola
raised various claims that defendants were violating his
constitutional rights, including that defendants were denying
him contact with Karri. Docket 1; Docket 19. The court screened
Piekkola's amended complaint and directed service. Docket
14. On June 24, 2016, defendants answered Piekkola's
complaint, and on September 15, 2016, they moved for summary
judgment. Docket 44.
to defendants, on August 8, 2016, Karri mailed a motion to
intervene to defendants' attorney, but she did not file
the motion with the court. Docket 67 at 3. On August 12,
2016, the court denied Piekkola's motion for preliminary
injunction because it was “too early in the case to
determine that Piekkola is likely to prevail on the
merits.” Docket 40 at 3. On September 15, 2016,
defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. Docket 44.
October 3, 2016, Karri filed a motion to intervene as an
interested party that was essentially identical to the motion
she sent to defendants' attorney. Docket 66. In her
motion, Karri adopts the factual background of Piekkola's
original and amended complaints, Docket 66 at 1, which
includes the fact that Piekkola and Karri are in a romantic
relationship and that defendants are denying them the ability
to communicate with one another. Docket 19 ¶ 26, 37,
123. Karri also objects to defendants' characterizations
of her purported statements in their answer to Piekkola's
amended complaint. Docket 66 at 1.
oppose the motion, arguing that Karri's motion was
untimely. Docket 67. They argue that Karri should have moved
to intervene in August when she sent the motion to
defendants' attorney and before the court dismissed
Piekkola's motion for preliminary injunction and before
defendants had filed their motion for summary judgment.
Id. at 2-3. Defendants also argue that Karri
Reynolds's interests will be adequately protected by
Piekkola and that intervention is not allowed here because
Karri's and Piekkola's interests are identical.
Id. at 4-5.
moves to intervene under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
24(a)(2). Docket 66 at 1. The rule for intervention of right
(a) Intervention of Right. On timely motion, the court must
permit anyone to intervene who: . . .
(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 practical
matter impair or impede the movant's ability to protect
its interest, unless existing parties adequately represent
Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(a). The Eighth Circuit construes Rule 24
liberally and resolves any doubts in favor of the proposed
intervenors. See United States v. Union Elec. Co.,
64 F.3d 1152, 1159 (8th Cir.1995) (listing cases); see
also Sierra Club v. Robertson, 960 F.2d 83, 86
(8th Cir.1992) (“Doubts regarding the propriety of
permitting intervention should be resolved in favor of
allowing it, because this serves the judicial system's
interest in resolving all related controversies in a single