Filed: Jun. 27, 2019
Latest Update: Jun. 27, 2019
Summary: ORDER CARLTON W. REEVES , District Judge . Before this Court is All Women's Healthcare of Jackson, Inc. d/b/a Jackson Women's Health Organization's (JWHO) Motion to Intervene filed January 24, 2019. Docket No. 91. After consideration of the arguments and applicable law, the motion is denied. On October 4, 2016, this Court entered a Consent Decree as a final resolution between the plaintiffs, pro-life protestors/demonstrators, and the defendants, the City of Jackson's police department. Th
Summary: ORDER CARLTON W. REEVES , District Judge . Before this Court is All Women's Healthcare of Jackson, Inc. d/b/a Jackson Women's Health Organization's (JWHO) Motion to Intervene filed January 24, 2019. Docket No. 91. After consideration of the arguments and applicable law, the motion is denied. On October 4, 2016, this Court entered a Consent Decree as a final resolution between the plaintiffs, pro-life protestors/demonstrators, and the defendants, the City of Jackson's police department. The..
More
ORDER
CARLTON W. REEVES, District Judge.
Before this Court is All Women's Healthcare of Jackson, Inc. d/b/a Jackson Women's Health Organization's (JWHO) Motion to Intervene filed January 24, 2019. Docket No. 91. After consideration of the arguments and applicable law, the motion is denied.
On October 4, 2016, this Court entered a Consent Decree as a final resolution between the plaintiffs, pro-life protestors/demonstrators, and the defendants, the City of Jackson's police department. The Consent Decree stated that "[t]he Court shall retain jurisdiction of this Decree for one (1) year from the date of its entry to enforce the terms of the consent judgment, at which time the case shall be dismissed with prejudice and without prior notice to the parties." Docket No. 86. The parties agreed with and consented to the terms. Id. The case was then administratively closed on the Court's docket.
Under the plain language of the Consent Decree, it expired on October 4, 2017. More than one year after the Decree expired, JWHO filed this motion stating that this Court should allow it to intervene in this case "so that it can file a motion to dismiss . . . and/or take any other appropriate action necessary to protect its rights." Docket No. 94 at 2.
JWHO cannot intervene to dismiss, or otherwise take any action against, a consent decree that no longer exists. "[T]he scope of a consent decree must be discerned within its four corners." United States v. Armour & Co., 402 U.S. 673, 682 (1971). The Fifth Circuit has held that once a consent decree has expired on its own terms, it is no longer enforceable. See United States v. Overton, 834 F.2d 1171, 1174 (5th Cir. 1987). The Consent Decree at issue expired in 2017. By its terms, the Court no longer retained jurisdiction over the Consent Decree. Because the Consent Decree has expired, this matter fails under every requirement of Article III standing1 and is untimely under Rule 24 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. JWHO states that "[d]espite the fact the Consent Decree was entered over two years ago, this action has never been dismissed." Docket No. 91 at 2. It may not have been dismissed through a Final Judgment, but having expired, this case has no life. Once the Consent Decree expired on its own terms, this cause was dismissed. No additional Final Judgment was necessary.
Accordingly, the Motion to Intervene is denied.
SO ORDERED.
