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