Free Response to Motion - District Court of Federal Claims - federal

Case 1:03-cv-02684-CFL

Document 513-2

Filed 07/20/2007

LLIf

Page 1 of 2 JArA

1Jn tfJe mltReb

tates
Filed

outt of jfeb eta
July
18 2007

aims
FILED

Case No 07 213L

FOR PUBLICATION

JUL 1 8 2007
CIDEFWAREAGLEFAMILY
ASSOCIATION TREATY OF 1837 1917
u s COURT OF

FEDERAL CLAIMS

REINSTATEMENT

Plaintiffs
v

RCFC 83 1 Immediate

c

8 tion Represenrl

Family

D

THE UNITED STATES

Defendant

Douglas
Sara E

War Eagle Pro se

Dupree

South Dakota

Culley Trial Attorney Ronald J Tenpas Acting Assistant Attorney General United Department ofJustice for Defendant with whom were Janet Goodwin and James Porter United States Department ofthe Interior ofcounsel
States

OPINION AND ORDER

SMITH Senior

Judge

Douglas War Eagle pro se plaintiff filed aComplaintl with five claims behalf of Plaintiffs Chief War Eagle Family Association Treaty of 1837 1917 Keinstatement PIs Compl 1 2 Attached to the one page complaint was a thirteen page letter addressed to Your Honor that was largely indiscernible and over 125 pages ofother documents that were disorganized and immaterial The documents included numerous pages of a family tree pictures ofhis great grandfather Chief War Eagle and other family members and copies offorms
for relief
on

On March 30 2007

I

Although Plaintiffs

titled their initial

filing

INJUNCTION

the Court construes it

as

a

Complaint pursuant

to United States Court ofFederal Claims Rule

RCFC

3

qo

J dO

62

Case 1:03-cv-02684-CFL

Document 513-2

Filed 07/20/2007

Page 2 of 2

and instruction sheets for
to be printed offthe

filing documents

in the United State Court of Federal Claims that appear

infemet
8

provides that a pro se a plaintiff may represent themself and their only Black s Law Dictionary defines immediate family members as a s person parents spouse children and siblings Black s Law Dictionary 638 8th ed 2004 RCFC 83 1 c 8 furthers provides that any other party must be represented by an attorney admitted to practice in this court It is well settled that a non cannot attorney pursue the claims ofothers
c

RCFC 83 l

immediate family members

or no

represent others before this
rule that

court

Fuselier

v

United States 63 Fed Cl 8 11

2004

There is

permits plaintiffto

engage in the unauthorized

practice

oflaw

Id

Complaint on behalf ofall named Plaintiffs is not amember c 8 In the Complaint Mr War Eagle states legal required that he represents the Chief War Association As for evidence ofthe Eagle Family composition ofthe Family Association Mr War Eagle provides aletter written by him dated June 3 2006 In the letter he states that he is speaking for his grandmother Amy Talks Clown and his great ChiefWar Eagle However neither Ms Talks Clown nor ChiefWar grandfather Eagle aremembers ofMr War Eagle s immediate family as are both they grandparents to Mr War Eagle Therefore Mr War Eagle is not able to represent them because they are not members ofhis immediate family as Instead these claims must be brought by an attorney admitted to required practice before this Court pursuant to RCFC 83 1 c 8 since both grandparents are long deceased there Additionally is no evidence that Mr War Eagle is representing the estate ofhis grandmother or great grandfather
ofthis Court
s

Mr War Eagle who signed the bar as

under RCFC 83 1

which would allow him to

proceed pro

se on

their behalf

Therefore because the for pro
se

ChiefWar Eagle Family Association is not

a

permissible plaintiff

representation Plaintiffs must be represented by counsel Plaintiffs are hereby given 60 days from the date ofthis Opinion and Order to retain counsel In the event Plaintiffs do not retain
counsel Plaintiffs

Complaint

shall be dismissed without

prejudice pursuant

to

RCFC 83 l

c

8

2

IT IS SO ORDERED

Ad
Senior

LOREN A SMITH

Judge

In response to Plaintiffs Complaint Defendant filed a Combined Motion to Strike Certain Plaintiffs and Dismiss Plaintiffs Complaint In light ofthis Opinion Defendant s Combined Motion is DENIED AS MOOT 2

2