Flynt v. Lombardi, No. 14-1202 (8th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this CasePrisoners on death row filed suit, challenging Missouri's execution protocol as violating the federal Controlled Substances Act and the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, and based on Eighth Amendment due process, ex post facto, and other claims. The district court sealed certain documents or docket entries, making them inaccessible to the public. There was no indication in the record why the entries were sealed, nor any explanation of what types of documents were sealed. Publisher Larry Flynt filed motions to intervene in both cases, under Federal Rule 24(b), and moved to unseal the records and entries. No party opposed Flynt's motions to intervene. One case had already been dismissed. In his motions, Flynt stated he had an interest in the sealed records as a publisher and as an advocate against the death penalty. Flynt claimed a heightened interest because Franklin, who had confessed to shooting Flynt, was a Missouri death row inmate and a plaintiff in both cases. Franklin was executed in November 2013; on that same day the district court denied Flynt's motion to intervene in one case as moot, and in the other, stating that "generalized interest" does not justify intervention. The Eighth Circuit reversed; for reasons of judicial efficiency, Rule 24(b) intervention is often preferable to filing a separate action.
Court Description: Civil case - Civil Procedure. Flynt sought to intervene in two Missouri death penalty cases, asserting he had an interest in sealed records in the cases as a publisher and advocate against the death penalty, and the district court denied his motion to intervene. To the extent the district court denied the motions because it believed Rule 24(b) intervention was the incorrect procedural mechanism, the court applied the wrong standard in holding Flynt's generalized interest in the subjects of the two cases did not justify intervention; the requirement that the movant's claim or defense and the main action have questions of law or fact in common is not generally required in cases where a party seeks to intervene to unseal judicial records; it is the public's interest in the confidentiality of the records that -in the language of Rule 24(b)(2)- is a question of law in common between the parties and the would-be intervenor; accordingly, Rule 24(b) intervention is the proper procedural mechanism for Flynt to intervene in the case, and the matter is remanded for further proceedings.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.