The proposed intervenor, an inmate, brought a motion for leave to intervene as an added plaintiff in an action commenced by another inmate against his parole officers.
The proposed intervenor argued that his own separate action against different parole officers involved similar claims of misfeasance in public office and negligence, and that a negative outcome in the plaintiff's case could adversely affect his own.
The court dismissed the motion, finding that the proposed intervenor failed to meet the test under Rule 13.01.
The disputes were purely private, involved different factual matrices and defendants, and the proposed intervenor's involvement would only complicate the proceedings.
