Herrera v. City of McAllen et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
MCALLEN DIVISION
JESUSITA HERRERA, on behalf of §
Herself and as Representative of the §
Estate of CARLOS GARZA, §
§
Plaintiff, §
§
v. § Civil Action No. 7:23-CV-00385
§
CITY OF MCALLEN, TEXAS, et al., §
§
Defendants. §
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiff Jesusita Herrera brings this Section 1983 action on behalf of herself and
the estate of her deceased son, Carlos Garza, against the City of McAllen, Texas, and
several McAllen police officers for the death of her son. Herrera alleges that McAllen
police officers assaulted Carlos while on duty by beating him with batons, pinning him
to the ground face-down, and by holding their bodyweight on his back making it difficult
for him to breathe. According to Herrera, the officers’ excessive force caused Carlos to
suffer a heart attack and pass away. This action has been pending since November 2023,
and the Parties have completed discovery and filed summary-judgment briefing.
Pending before the Court is Richard Garza’s Motion to Intervene and Assert
Beneficiary Interest. (Dkt. No. 69). For the following reasons, the Court DENIES the
Motion.
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
March 18, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 7:23-cv-00385 Document 81 Filed 03/18/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 4

2
I. LEGAL STANDARD
There are two types of intervention in federal court: intervention as of right and
permissive intervention. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 24. Rule 24(a) governs interventions as of
right. If the party seeking intervention has not been given an unconditional right to do
so by federal statute, it must meet four requirements for intervention as of right set out
by Rule 24(a)(2):
(1) the motion to intervene is timely; (2) the potential
intervener asserts an interest that is related to the property or
transaction that forms the basis of the controversy in the case
into which she seeks to intervene; (3) the disposition of that
case may impair or impede the potential intervener’s ability
to protect her interest; and (4) the existing parties do not
adequately represent the potential intervener’s interest.
Saldano v. Roach, 363 F.3d 545, 551 (5th Cir. 2004).
“Failure to satisfy any one requirement precludes intervention of right.” Haspel &
Davis Milling & Planting Co. v. Bd. of Levee Comm’s of the Orleans Levee Dist., 493 F.3d 570,
578 (5th Cir. 2007). However, “[t]he rule ‘is to be liberally construed,’ with ‘doubts
resolved in favor of the proposed intervenor.’” Entergy Gulf States Louisiana, L.L.C. v. U.S.
E.P.A., 817 F.3d 198, 203 (5th Cir. 2016) (quoting In re Lease Oil Antitrust Litig., 570 F.3d
244, 248 (5th Cir. 2009)). This decision is a practical undertaking, considering the
particular facts and circumstances of the case. Adam Joseph Resources v. CNA Metals Ltd.,
919 F.3d 856, 864 (5th Cir. 2019) (citing Brumfield v. Dodd, 749 F.3d 339, 341 (5th Cir. 2014)).
Rule 24(b) governs permissive interventions. While the Fifth Circuit generally
maintains a “broad policy favoring intervention[,]” Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Tex. Alcoholic
Beverage Comm’n, 834 F.3d 562, 569 (5th Cir. 2016), district courts “have complete
Case 7:23-cv-00385 Document 81 Filed 03/18/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 4

3
discretion to allow permissive intervention.” Quantlab Group, LP v. Dempster, No. 4:18-
CV-02171, 2020 WL 224537, *3 (S.D. Tex. Jan. 15, 2020) (citing Graham v. Evangeline Par.
Sch. Bd., 132 F.App’x 507, 513 (5th Cir. 2005)). Permissive intervention is appropriate
when:
(1) the motion is timely;
(2) the intervenor’s claim or defense and the main action have
a question of law or fact in common; and
(3) intervention will not unduly delay or prejudice the
adjudication of the rights of the original parties.
Id. at *3. Additionally, the Fifth Circuit instructs courts to consider:
(4) whether the intervenors are adequately represented by
other parties; and
(5) whether they are likely to contribute significantly to the
development of the underlying factual issues.
League of United Latin Am. Citizens, Council No. 4434 v. Clements, 884 F.2d 185, 189 (5th Cir.
1989).
II. DISCUSSION
Garza has failed to demonstrate that he is entitled to either intervention as of right
or permissive intervention. His two-page Motion makes only conclusory assertions that
he has “an interest relating to the property or transaction that is the subject of the action,”
that “[d]isposition of the action without his involvement may as a practical matter impair
or impede his ability to protect that interest,” and that “[t]he existing parties do not
adequately represent his interests.” (Dkt. No. 69 at 2). These assertions are not supported
by evidence or caselaw demonstrating that Garza meets the requirements for
Case 7:23-cv-00385 Document 81 Filed 03/18/26 in TXSD Page 3 of 4

4
intervention. Garza also fails to explain when he even became aware that his interests
were being negatively affected, making it impossible for the Court to determine whether
his Motion is timely. See Sommers v. Bank of Am., N.A., 835 F.3d 509, 512–13 (5th Cir. 2016).
Such a barebones Motion is insufficient to carry Garza’s burden. As a result, the Court
must deny his Motion.
III. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Richard Garza’s Motion to Intervene and Assert
Beneficiary Interest, (Dkt. No. 69), is DENIED without prejudice.
It is SO ORDERED.
Signed on March 18, 2026.
___________________________________
DREW B. TIPTON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 7:23-cv-00385 Document 81 Filed 03/18/26 in TXSD Page 4 of 4