Court filing

Ninth Circuit Order Denying Belov Intervention — East Bay Sanctuary v. Trump

Summary

The Ninth Circuit denied Nikolai Belov's motion to intervene in East Bay Sanctuary Covenant, et al. v. Joseph R. Biden, President of the United States, et al., No. 23-16032 (D.C. No. 4:18-cv-06810-JST), by an order filed June 24, 2024 before Circuit Judges W. Fletcher, Paez and VanDyke. The panel found Belov had not met the standard for intervention as of right, citing Wilderness Soc'y v. U.S. Forest Serv., 630 F.3d 1173, 1177 (9th Cir. 2011) (en banc), and declined permissive intervention for similar reasons, citing Cameron v. EMW Women's Surgical Center, 595 U.S. 267, 278-79 (2022).

Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used

Filed June 25, 2024 in East Bay Sanctuary v. Trump; one of 102 filings from this case.

Record facts

Court	N.D. Cal.
Filed	2024-06-25

Cite this document

“Ninth Circuit Order Denying Belov Intervention — East Bay Sanctuary v. Trump.” N.D. Cal., No. 4:18-cv-06810-JST, Doc. 201, filed 2024-06-25. Archived at Pandemic Darlings, https://pandemicdarlings.com/court-filings/east-bay-sanctuary-v-trump/2024-06-25-ninth-circuit-order-denying-intervention-belov/, SHA-256 bb03dbf79e43cfdd9bf6cd1557dfbbc4465cce578a6dbfb3c954dbf70f785079.

Search CourtListener for this docket number

Full text

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 
 
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT 
 
EAST BAY SANCTUARY COVENANT; et 
al.,  
 
 
 
 
 
Plaintiffs-Appellees,  
 
  v.  
 
JOSEPH R. BIDEN, President of the United 
States; et al.,  
 
 
 
 
 
Defendants-Appellants,  
______________________________  
 
NIKOLAI BELOV,  
 
 
 
 
 
Intervenor-Pending. 
No. 
23-16032  
 
D.C. No. 4:18-cv-06810-JST  
Northern District of California,  
Oakland  
 
ORDER 
 
Before:  W. FLETCHER, PAEZ, and VANDYKE, Circuit Judges. 
 
Nikolai Belov has moved to intervene in this appeal.  Dkt. No. 115.  Belov 
has not met the standard for intervention as of right.  See Wilderness Soc’y v. U.S. 
Forest Serv., 630 F.3d 1173, 1177 (9th Cir. 2011) (en banc).  For similar reasons, 
we do not exercise our discretion to grant permissive intervention.  See Cameron v. 
EMW Women’s Surgical Center, P.S.C., 595 U.S. 267, 278–79 (2022).  Accordingly, 
Belov’s Motion to Intervene is DENIED. 
 
FILED 
 
JUN 24 2024 
 
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK 
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 
Case: 23-16032, 06/24/2024, ID: 12893185, DktEntry: 117, Page 1 of 1
Case 4:18-cv-06810-JST   Document 201   Filed 06/25/24   Page 1 of 1

File and source

File: gov.uscourts.cand.334557.201.0.pdf
Size: 177,017 bytes
SHA-256: bb03dbf79e43cfdd9bf6cd1557dfbbc4465cce578a6dbfb3c954dbf70f785079
Our copy: gov.uscourts.cand.334557.201.0.pdf
Original: archive.org