United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT July 29, 2004
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 04-20097
Summary Calendar
CARL R. PRUETT; SCOTT MARTIN,
Plaintiffs-Appellees,
versus
HARRIS COUNTY BAIL BOND BOARD; ET AL.,
Defendants,
INTERNATIONAL FIDELITY INSURANCE COMPANY; ALLEGHENY
CASUALTY COMPANY,
Movants-Appellants.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. H-03-CV-3241
--------------------
Before DUHÉ, STEWART, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:1
International Fidelity Insurance Company (“IFIC”) and
Allegheny Casualty Company (“Allegheny”) appeal the district
court’s denial of their motion seeking intervention as of right or,
alternatively, permissive intervention in accordance with FED. R.
CIV. P. 24. We have jurisdiction to entertain this appeal to the
extent that IFIC and Allegheny are challenging the district court’s
1
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that
this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except
under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
denial of their motion seeking intervention as of right. Edwards
v. City of Houston, 78 F.3d 983, 992 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc).
However, to the extent that IFIC and Allegheny are challenging the
district court’s denial of their motion seeking permissive
intervention, we have jurisdiction over this appeal only if we
determine that the district court abused its vast discretion in
denying the motion. Id.
IFIC and Allegheny have not shown that the district court
erred in denying their motion to the extent that they sought
intervention as of right, as they have not shown that the Harris
County Bail Bond Board and Harris County cannot represent them
adequately in the plaintiffs’ suit. See Edwards, 78 F.3d at 1004-
05; Hopwood v. Texas, 21 F.3d 603, 605-06 (5th Cir. 1994).
Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED to the
extent that it denied IFIC and Allegheny’s motion seeking
intervention as of right.
IFIC and Allegheny have likewise not shown that the district
court abused its discretion in denying permissive intervention. See
Ingebretsen v. Jackson Pub. Sch. Dist., 88 F.3d 274, 281 (5th Cir.
1996). Consequently, to the extent that IFIC and Allegheny seek to
appeal the district court’s denial of their motion seeking
permissive intervention, their appeal is DISMISSED.
JUDGMENT OF DISTRICT COURT AFFIRMED IN PART AND APPEAL
DISMISSED IN PART.
2