FAIR POLITICAL PRACTICES COMMI V. WILLIAM EISEN, No. 12-16165 (9th Cir. 2013)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OCT 25 2013 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT FAIR POLITICAL PRACTICES COMMISSION, an agency of the State of California, No. 12-16165 D.C. No. 2:12-cv-00093-GEBCKD Plaintiff - Appellee, MEMORANDUM* v. WILLIAM EISEN, Applicant-in-intervention Appellant, UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE, Defendant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California Garland E. Burrell, Jr., District Judge, Presiding Submitted October 15, 2013** Before: FISHER, GOULD, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges. * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Willaim Eisen appeals pro se from the district court s order denying his motion to intervene in a Freedom of Information Act action. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the denial of intervention as of right. Citizens for Balanced Use v. Mont. Wilderness Ass n, 647 F.3d 893, 896 (9th Cir. 2011). We affirm. The district court properly denied Eisen s motion for intervention as of right under Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(a)(2) because Eisen failed to demonstrate a significant protectable interest in the action. See id. at 897 (setting forth four-part test for determining intervention as of right, and explaining that to demonstrate a significant protectable interest, the proposed intervener must establish that the interest is protectable under some law and that there is a relationship between the legally protected interest and the claims at issue ); United States v. Alisal Water Corp., 370 F.3d 915, 919 (9th Cir. 2004) ( The party seeking to intervene bears the burden of showing that all the requirements for intervention have been met. ). AFFIRMED. 2 12-16165

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.