United States District Court, W.D. Missouri, Central Division
NANETTE K. LAUGHREY UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Hester, a pro se inmate in the custody of the
Missouri Department of Corrections (“MDOC”),
seeks leave to intervene in this class action. For the
reasons discussed below, the motion is denied.
inmates in MDOC's custody, Michael Postawko, Christopher
Baker, and Michael Jamerson, bring this suit pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that they were denied
direct-acting antiviral (“DAA”) drugs for
treatment of their chronic hepatitis C. See Docs. 1
and 30. On July 26, 2017, the Court granted Plaintiffs'
motion to certify a class consisting of inmates in MDOC
custody with chronic hepatitis C who have not received DAA
medications. Doc. 174. The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals
granted leave to defendants Corizon, LLC and MDOC to appeal
the Court's class-certification decision. Doc. 184. The
Court then stayed all deadlines and proceedings pending the
Eighth Circuit's decision concerning class certification.
Hester filed the instant motion to intervene on December 8,
2017. Doc. 197. Mr. Hester, who has been diagnosed with
hepatitis, challenges what he describes as an MDOC
representation “to this Court . . . that 13, 000
[M]edicaid recipients in the state have hepatitis.”
Doc. 197, at 1. However, said representation apparently was
made in a different case, J.E.M. v. Tidball, W.D.
Mo., No. 16-4273-SRB. See Doc. 197-1, at 3. Indeed,
Mr. Hester's motion appears to be directed entirely to
that other case. Although Mr. Hester failed to include
pleadings with his motion to intervene, the thrust of his
complaint as set forth in his motion appears to be that MDOC
fails to provide inmates with adequate nourishment and
medical treatment, which results in what in effect becomes a
death sentence for those with serious illnesses. Mr. Hester
asks the Court, inter alia, (i) to declare void
certain statutory provisions that preclude Social Security
and Medicaid benefits for prisoners; (ii) to order the
release of prisoners with hepatitis “and/or other
deadly diseases”; (iii) to appoint counsel and permit
Mr. Hester to appeal from this Court's decision
concerning these requests; (iv) to order the transfer of all
inmates with hepatitis into federal custody so that they can
receive adequate medical care, and to tax Missouri for
resulting costs; or (v) to order MDOC to explain “who
set in motion” the purported misrepresentation
concerning Medicaid benefits for inmates with hepatitis. Doc.
197, at 5-6.
Court must construe a motion to intervene liberally. In
re Uponor, Inc., F1807 Plumbing Fittings Prod. Liab.
Litig., 716 F.3d 1057, 1065-66 (8th Cir. 2013).
Nonetheless, the Court must deny Mr. Hester's motion to
intervene for two reasons.
Mr. Hester does not suggest that the named plaintiffs are not
adequate representatives of the class of inmates to which he
purportedly belongs. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(a)
(providing that intervention is not required if
“existing parties adequately represent” the
proposed intervenor's interest); Mid-Century Ins. Co.
v. Nichols, No. 4:12-CV-235, 2012 WL 2684991 at *2 (E.D.
Mo. July 6, 2012) (denying motion to intervene where,
inter alia, the proposed intervenor “d[id] not
address the interests of defendants . . . in this action and
how they differ from” those of the intervenor); see
also In re Uponor, 716 F.3d at 1066 (“We have . .
. presumed that representation is adequate when the
individual attempting to intervene is a member of a class
already involved in the litigation . . . .”) (quotation
marks and citation omitted).
Mr. Hester's proposed claims and the Plaintiff's
claims do not share a common question of law or fact.
See Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(b) (providing that the Court
may permit intervention if the intervenor “has a claim
or defense that shares with the main action a common question
of law or fact”). Mr. Hester's complaints
concerning nourishment and general medical treatment are not
properly raised in this action concerning whether inmates
with hepatitis C have a right to administration of DAA
medications. Missouri Coal. for the Env't Found. v.
McCarthy, No. 16-4069-NKL, 2016 WL 3566253, at *5 (W.D.
Mo. June 27, 2016) (denying motion to intervene where
intervenors' involvement was “more likely to delay
and sidetrack this suit”) (citing N. Dakota ex rel.
Stenehjem v. United States, 787 F.3d 918, 923 (8th Cir.
2015)). Mr. Hester's discussion of Medicaid and Social
Security benefits, crime bills, and “warehousing”
of prisoners, and the nature of the relief he seeks-from
declarations concerning Medicaid and Social Security benefits
for Missouri inmates, to the release or transfer of seriously
ill inmates, to accountability for a purported
misrepresentation by the MDOC-further demonstrate that his
complaints are not related to the central issue in this case.
See United Fire & Cas. Co. v. Titan Contractors
Serv., Inc., No. 10-2076, 2014 WL 4851801, at *3 (E.D.
Mo. Sept. 29, 2014) (denying motion to intervene where
“the overlap of common factual questions . . . [wa]s