GODFREY v. USA, No. 1:2016cv00954 - Document 26 (Fed. Cl. 2017)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION re: granting 19 Motion for Summary Judgment. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment. Signed by Chief Judge Susan G. Braden. (dw) Copy to parties. [Sent via certified mail: 7017 1450 0000 1346 0225]
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
GODFREY v. USA Doc. 26 TJnttle @nite! $.tutes @ourt of felersl @lsfmg No. l6-954C Filed: June 28, 2017 +* +* **** * ** * t t t t i1.1 t t t *,t * ** * * **,i. * t * a * FILED ** * irlil 2 J tuii IJS COIJFi SYLVAN GODFREY, FfDERAL OF CLN.II.JS Rules of the United States Court of Federal Claims ('RCFC) l s(a)(2) (Amendments Befole Trial); 56 (Summary Judgment); 83.I (aX3) @ligibility to Practtce; Pro Se Plaintiff, pro se, Litigants), TIIE TJNITED STATES, Defendant. rr r '|. |i ** r * ** * +,t:+ r 1. ** t( '* ** {. ** f * * ** * * *,} ** ** * Sylvan Godfrey, Marianna, Flor.ida, plaintifi pro se . courtney D. Enlow, united states Department of Justice, Counsel for the Government. civ Division, washington, D.c., MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING THE GOVERNMENT,S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT BRADEN, ChiefJudge. I, RELEVANTFACTUALBACKGROUND.' sylvan codfrey, a member ofthe Sioux Indian'riibe ofSouth Dakota, is cunentry serving a 365-month prison term at the Federal corrections lnstitute (.,FCI") in Marianna, gorida ttrat commenced in 2013. See Godfey v. United States,l3l Fed. Ci. 11l,1l4 eol,l). On December8,20l0, Congress ,-.,stat. 3064 (2010) that authorized, enacted the Claims Resolution Act, pub. L. No. lll_291, 124 ratified, and confinned a Decembir 9. 2009 Setrlemenr ' The relevant facts are derived from the coul's March 20, 2017 Memorandum Opinion And Order, Godf.ey v. United Stqtes,l3l Fed. Cl. I I l. 114-15 Q017), and the April 26,2017 Government's Appendix (,.Gov't App'x at Al-Al l4"). ?0I? l,'{50 0000 l,3qh 0ae5 Dockets.Justia.com Agreement in Cobell v. Salazar, Civil Action No. 96-1258, ECF 3660-2 (D,D.C. 2009) ("the Settlement Agreement"), whereby tlre Govelnment deposited $ I .4 billion into the Accounting/Trust Administration Fund, and $2 billion into the Trust Land Consolidation Fund. Govl App'x at A8, A17. The Settlement Agreement also established a class of plaintiffs, designated as the Historical Accounting Class, of which Mr. Godfiey is a member. See Godlrey, 131 Fed- Cl. at7151,see a/su Gov't App'x at A8-A12. Under the terms of the December9,2009 Settlement Agreement, each member of the Historieal Accounting Class is entitled to $1,000 from the Accounting/Trust Administration Fund. Gov't App'x at A29. The settlement Agreement also established a separale Trust Administration class; members of that class received a payment of $500 plus a prorated share of any funds left over from the Accounting/Trust Administltion Fund. Gov't App'x at A30-A31. Mr. Godfrey is a member of the Trust Administration class. Gov't App'x at A10l-A102, Al 10. Mr. Godfrey,s father, George Godfrey, Sr., also was a member of the two classes. Gov't App'x A102, Al 12, A114. Heirs of class members are also entitled to payment. Gov't App',x at A100. The parties 1o the December 9, 2009 settlement Agreement designated Garden city Group, Inc. ('ccc") to serve as the claims Administrator; GCG was thereby charged with the duty to "provide seryices to the Parties to facilitate adminisaative matters and distribution ofthe Amount Payable for Iiach Valid Claim in accordance with the terms and conditions of [the December 9, 2009 settlement Agreementl." Gov't App'x at A9. The December 9, 2009 settliment Agreement specified that the Government "shall have no role in, nor be held responsibie or liable inLy way for, the.Accounting 'lrust Administration Fund, the holding or investment of the monies ln the Qualifying Bank or the distribution of such monies.,' Gov,t-App'x at A2Z. II. PROCEDURALHISTORY. on August 4,2016,Mr. Godfrey ("praintiff') filed a complaint in the United states court ^_ , ofFederal Claims alleging that the Government violated his statuiory and constitutional rights, as well as the terms of the December 9,2009 seltlement Agreement. dcr No. 1 at l-5 c.co;pl.-). on september 30, 2016, the Goverru'ent filed a Motion To Dismiss the August 4, 2016 complaint, pursuanr to Rures of the unired states court of Federal claims (,RcFc) Tiiuxrl ,ra l2(b)(6). ECF No. 8. Plainli{Ps Response to the september 30,2016 Motion was aue on b'ciou". 31' 2016. weeks after the deadline, however, plaintifffailed to fit" uoy."rponr" o1',i;*rr"" *itt the court. Therefore, on December 2,2016, the courl issued an order instLircting euintirr to rtow cause why this case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. ECF No. 9, - _ _ -on, December lg,20l6, plaintifffiled To Defendant's Moticn To Dismiss, a Motion For Extension of rime To File opposition To Amend complaint, And For Third rarty nepreJJntativ". ECF No. 10. on January 3, 2016, the court grantea plaintiff an enlargement'of ti,"- ;;-fil response to the Government's september 30,2016 Motion To " Dismiss, but did not rule on the Piaintiff s Deoember 19, 2016 Motion To Amend or Motion For Third p-ty n"pr"r"nr^tiu". No. on January 4,2o17, the Govemment filed a Response to plaintifis D'ecember _11. 19, 20t 6 Motions. ECF No. 12. rcr on January 18, 2017, Plaintifffiled a Motion To Alter or AmeM l'he December 19, 2016 Judgment, that the court considered a response to the september 30,2016 Motion To Dismiss. ECF No. 14. Thelein, Plaintiff argued that: (i) another case pending before the United States Court of Federal Claims, Redboyv. United States,No. 17-19, is "mater.ial to [Plaintiff s] ability to state the jurisdiction of this court;" (2) the recor.d reflects PlaintifPs effort to oppose the Government's Motion To Dismiss; and (3) Plaintiff "lacks the ability to pursue his rights as a truly pro se htigant," because FCI- Marianna did not afford Victor Fourstar, PlaintifPs ,.third-party representative," aocess to Plaintiffs legal files. ECF No. 14 at 2. On March 20,2017, the court granted the Government's September 30, 2016 Motion To Dismiss, pursuant to RCFC I2(bxl ), with regard to all of the claims alleged in the August 4, 2016 complaint, except the claim that the Govemment failed to compensate plaintifffi.rlly as a member of the Historical Accounting class. .iee Godfrey,131 Fed. cl. 123-24. plaintiffs December 19,2016 Motion For'lhird Party Representative requesting that^t Mr. Fourstar.serve as Plaintills counsel, also was denied under RCFC 83.1(aX3). Id. at1221j. On Apld,l26,2017, the Govenunent filed a Motion For Summary Judgment (,,Cov1 Mot',), pursuant to RCFC 56, together with an Appendix. ECF No. 19, By the April 26, 2017 Motion For summary Judgment, tlre Govemment al'gues that it was under no contractual obligation ro make a payment to Plaintiff as an individual member of the Historical Accounting Clasi and, in the alternative, that Plaintiffwas in fact paid fully as a member of the Historical Accounting Class, Gov't Mot. at l. On May 24,2017, Plaintiff filed a Response (,,p1. Resp.') and requested leave to amend the August 4, 2016 complaint. Pl. Resp. at PlaintiJPs May 24,2017 Response was written, signed, and filed by Mr. Fourstar. Pl. Resp. at 5-6. i. _ On May 26,2017, the Govemment filed a Morion To Strike plaintiffs Response May 24,2017 plaintiffs For Third Party Reprcsentation, and a Response To plaintiffs Request For Leave To Amend the August 4, 2016 complaint ("Gov't Reply"). on June 16,2017,tf,e court convened a and a Reply In Support of Motion For summary Judgmenl a Response To Request telephone conference, wherein the Government withdrew the May 26, 2017 Motion To strike. III. DISCUSSION. A. Jurisdiction, Th9 court previously determined that it has jurisdiction to adjudicate the allegation in the August 4, 2016 complaint that the Govemment breached the terms of the settlemeniAgreement, because it "could fairly be interpreted as contemplating money damages in the Ivent the Government underpaid a member of the Histodcal eccounting class." Gidfray,l3l Fed. cl. at I 22 (citarions omitted). B. Stending. also previously delermined that Plaintiffhas standing to seek adjudication of his .The_court claim that the Govemment breached the terms of the Settlement Agreement, as: [t]he Decernber 9 ,2009 cobel settrement Agreement provides thar, ..each member of the Historical Accounting Class shall be paid a per capita amount of g1,000,00 after Final Approval. This wilt be a per-person, not a per-account, payment." Cobell v. Salamr,Civtl Action No. 96-1258, ECF No. 3660-2 at tf E.3a, The August 4,2016 Complaint alleges that the Government breached these terms, because Plaintiff is a member of the Historical Accounting Class, but only received $880. Compl. at 1-2. Under these circumstrnces, the court has determined that the December 9, 2009 Cobel/ Settlement Agreement could fairly be interpreted as contemplating money damages in tJre event that the Govemment underpaid a member of the Historical Accounting Class. Godfrey, 131 Fed. Cl. at 122. Relevant Legal Standards. 1, Standard Of Review For A Motion For Summary Judgment, Pureulnt To RCFC 56(a). If there is no genuine issue as to any material fact, the moving party is entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law. See Andersonv. Liberty Lobby, Lnc.,477 U.5.242,255 (1986);see a/so RCFC 56(a) ("The court shall granl summary judgment if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled tojudgrnent as a matter oflaw.'). A material fact is one that might significantly affect the oulcome of the suit under applicable law. see Anderson,477 u.s. at 248 ("As to matedaliry, rhe substantive law will identify which facts are matetial. Only disputes over facts that might affect the outcome ofthe suit under the goveming law will properly pr€clude the enlry of summary judgrnent. Faotual disputes that are irrelevant or unnecessary will not be counted. . . . Thar is, while the materiality determination rests on thc substantive law, it is the substantive law's identification of which facts are critical and which facts are irrelevant that governs."). The existenc€ of " some alleged factual dispute between the parties will not defeat an otherwise properly suppofied motion for srunmaf,y judgnent[.]" ld. at 249 (emphasis in original). Where the nonmoving party only proffers evidence that is .,melely colorable, or is not significantly probative, summary judgment may b€ granted,', Id. at 249-50 (citations omitted). The party moving for sunmmry judgment has the initial burden of demonstratins the of any genuine issue of material fact, see celotex corp. v. carrett, 477 u.s.317:32s (1986). If the moving parry canies its burden to demonsfate an absence ofany genuine issue of material fac1, then the burden of pmof shifts to the nonmoving party to "set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue Jbf trial." Anderson,477 u.s, at 250. The court is rcouired rcsolve any doubts about factual issues in favor ofthe nonmoving party. see Matsushiti Elec. !o Indus. Co. v Zenith Radio Corp., 4?5 U.S. 574, SS7 (1987). In doing so, all presumptions and inferences drawn from the evidence must be resolved in favor of the norunoving party. Id. Nevertheless, the court must weigh the persuasiveness and plausibility of such evidenci ani view it "through the prism of the substantive evidentiary burden." anderson,477 u.s. at 254. rn opposing a_motion for surnmary judgment, plaintiffs may not rely on "[m]ele denials or conclusory statements[,]" Barmag Barmer Maschinenfcbrik AG v. Murata Machinery, Ltd,731 F.2d g3_, 836 (Fed. Cir. 1984). absence 2. Standard Of Review For Pro ,Se Litigants. Pro se plaintiffs' pleadings are held to a less stringent standard than those of litigants by counsel. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972) (holding that pro se complaints, "however inartfirlly pleaded," are held to "less stringent standards than formal pleadhgs drafted by lawyers'). represented D. The Government's April26,2017 Motion For Summary Judgment. 1. The Government's Argument. The Govemment argues that it does not have a contractual obligation to distribute $1,000 to Plaintiff as a member of the Historical Accounting Class. Gov,t Mot. at 2. Although the settlement Agreement required the Government to pay money into the Accounting/Trust Administrafion Fund and the Trust Land Consolidation Fund, the Settlement Agreement specified that the Government would have "no lole in, nor be held responsible or liable in any way lor" the distibution of the payments to class members. Gov't Mot. at I L Instead, such payments lvere to be handled by GCO, as the Claims Administrator, so that any bleach of contract action concerns Plaintiff and GCG, not the Government. Gov't Mot. at I l-12. In addition, the Govemment proffered evidence that GcG mailed plaintiff a check for plaintiffon January g, 201 3. Gov't App'x at Al0l, A104. In addition, the Government proffered evidence showing that plaintiff admitted to receiving the $1,000 check inan August l0,20l5letter he sent to GCG. cov't App'x at A106. Therefore, there can be no genuine dispute that plaintiff received the money he alliges that he is due. Gov't Mot. at 12. $ 1,000 on December 31,2012, andit was sigred and cashed by 2. PlaintifPsResponse. ff responds that the Govemment has a contractual obligation to pay the fi:ll g1,000 amount to the members of the Historical Accounting class and that the ,.Bad Men,, clause of lhe Fort Laramie Treatiesz supports this contention. pl. Resp. at 3-5. plaintiffadds, however, that ne did not receive the $1,000 and theevidence submitted by the ooverrment is vague and iikely to have been fabricated. Pl. Resp. at 3-5. Plainti 3. The Courtts Rerolution. "To recover for a breach ofcontract, a pafiy must allege and establish: (l) a valid contract betweenlhe parties, (2) an obligation or duty arising out ofthe contract, (3) a breach ofthat rluty, T$ q) lamages caused by the breach." ,sar carlos In. & Drainage Disi. v. united states, gTT 957,959 (Fed. cir. 1989). The tJnited states court of Appeals for.the Federal circuit has 1.2:9 held that judicial interpretation of oontract language begins *itt, tttr ..plain language of the agreement[.]" Foley v, united states, F.3d 1.032,1034 (Fed. cir. 1993). Indeed,-coirt, ,..uy nol look to extrinsic evidence" to interpret unambiguous oonlaot language, see Teg-raradigm lnvtl , Inc. v. united stares, 465 F.3d 1329, 1338 (Ired. cir. 2006). The Decem6er 9, 20-09 settlement Agreement provides that the Govemment "shau have no roi" in, nor be held responsible ll '1 Treaty ofFort Laramie, l5 Stat. 635. or fiable in any way for, the AccountinglTrust Adminish'ation Fund . . . or the distibulion ofsuch monies." Gov't App'x at A27 (emphasis added). As such, the Settlement Agrcement expressly relieves the Government fi'om any duty to distdbute any funds from the Accounting/Trust Administration Fund to the members of the Historical Accounting Class. Therefore, as a matter of law, there is no genuine issue of material fact as to whether the Government is liable to Plaintiff for $ I,000. Even if the December 9, 2009 Setdement Agreement obligated the Govemment to deliver Plaintiff $1,000, summary judgment is warranted, because Plaintiff received the money that he is owed. On Decembet 31,2012 GCG mailed Plaintiff a $1,000 check that was signed and cashed on January 8, 2013. Gov't App'x at A101, At04. In addition, on August 10, 2015, plaintiff informed GCG that he received the $1,000 check. Gov't App'x at A106. plaintiff counters only that he did not receive tlle $ 1,000 and suggests that the Government's evidence is fabricated. Pl. Resp. at 3-5. Conclusory allegations, however, fail to create a genuine issue of material fact for trial' see Bamtag Barger Maschinenfabrik AG,731 F'.2d ar 835-36 (holding that "[m]ere denials or conclusory statements ar^e insufficient" to oppose a motion for summary judgnent). For these reasons, the court grants the Governmenl's Motion For Summary Judgment. E. Plaintiff s May 24,2017 Motion To Amend And Request For Third party Representation. l. PlatntiffsArgument, Plaintiff asserts that the Govemment and GCG are perp€tuating an "on-Going common scheme" to "deprive and exploif 'Plaintiffof his conlractuairights by depriving him of-the money he is cwed as a member of the Historical Accounting class. pl. Resp. at 3, iherefore, plaintiff requests leave to amend the August 4,2016 complaint to add tori L. castaneda and Ryan Zinke of GC_G as defendants. Pl. Resp. at4. In addition, plaintiff requests leave to amend the Augusr 4, 2016 complaint to reflect that he was not paid the conect amount of money as a member-of the Trust Administration class or as an heir to the estate ofGeorge Godfrey, sr., who was due payment as a member of the Historical Accounting class and the Trust Adminishation class. pl.hisp. at 5 ' .Therefore, Plaintiff requests leave to amend the August 4, 2016 complaint to initiate a class action against the Government on these new claims. pl. Resp. at 3. Finalli, plaintiff requests that Mr. Fourstar be allowed to serve as his Third pady Representative. pl. Resp. at 2. 2, . fr"- The Government's Response, plaintifps -cor9{*ent responds that the courl should reject complaint, as request to amend the it would be futile, because tfie courr does not have jurisdiction to {11acg9 ctaims against private parlies. see Brown v. united states, 105 F .3d 621, 6z41rea. Cir. 1997). Plaintiffs claim as an heir to the estate of George Godfrey, sr., cannot create a action against the Government, because the Governmentls under no obligation "uur"of to make payments to individual mernbers of the Historical Accounting class or Trust Administration class, Gov,t Reply at 4. And, Plaintiffs request to amend the-August 4, 2016 complaint to initiate a class action is prohibited as a matter of law, because he is a pro se litjgant. sei Green lJnited v. states, No, l5-988, 201s WL 8529463, at *l (Fed. Ct. Dec, 11, 2015t (citing RCFC Sr.t(a)(3)). The ayegs. t +, 2016 Government adds that Plaintiffs request to have Mr, Foumtar serve as his counsel was rejected by the court. since Mr. Fourstar is not a licensed attornev nor is he a member of Plaintiffs immediate family. Gov't Reply at 10. The Court's Resolution. RCFC ls(a)(l) affords a party the opportunity to amend a pleading once as a matter of course, within twenty-one days after service of the pleading or "if the pleading is on€ to which a responsive pleading is required, 2l days after service of a responsive pleading or 21 days after service of a motion under RCFC 12(b), (e), or (f), whichever is earlior." Otherwise, a party may amend a pleading "only with the opposing palty's written consent or the court's leave." RCFC l5(a)(2), In this case, PlaintifPs May 24,2017 Motion To Amend was filed 293 days after Plaintiffs service of the August 4, 2016 Complaint. Plaintiff s May 24,2017 Motion To Amend also was filed 236 days after the Govemment's September 30, 2016 Motion To Dismiss. Therefore, aI this juncture, Plaintiff may amend the August 4, 2016 Complaint only with the consent of the opposing party or by the court's leave. See RCFC l5(a)(2), The Government opposes PlaintifPs request. Gov't Reply at 7. RCFC l5(a)(2) provides that "[t]he court should freely give leave [to amend] whenjustice requires." Bu1, the court may exercise its discretion to deny leave, if the request evidences "undue delay, bad faith or dilatory motive on the part of the movant, repeated failure to cure so deficiencies by amendments previously allowed, undue prejudice to the opposing party by virlue of allowance of the amendment, [or] futilily of amendment." Foman v. oii*,11[ v.3. hg, nz (1962)- In addition, "[w]hen a party faces the possibility of being denied leave to amend on the ground of futility, that party must . . . proffer sufficient facts supporting the amended pleading that theclaim could survive a dispositive prehial motion." Kemin Fiods, L.c. ,. pig*"niot vegiates DelCentroS.A. deC.Y.,464 F.3d 1339, 1354-55 (Fed. Cir.2005). The United States Court of Fedelal Claims does not have jurisdiction to adjudicate cases against private parties. see 28 U.s.c. g 149 i (a)(1); se a also Brown v. united states,105 F.3d 62 l, !2! ,(Fed, cir. 1997) ("The Tucker Act gtants the [united states] cout of federal claims jurisdiction over suits against the united States, not against individual federal officials."). Thetefore, amending the August 4, 2016 complaint to add GCG, Ms. castaneda, and Mr. Zinke as defendanls would be futile. The court also has determined that the Government is under no contractual oblisation to ensure that individual members of t]le December 9,2009 settlement Agreement receive iayment. Therpfore, Plaintiff s proposed amendment to include claims against thi Government that ie was not paid in full as a member of the Trust Adminishation Class or as an heir to the estate of George Godfrey, Sr., would be futile. Finally, RCFC 83.1(a)(3) bars individuals who are not attorneys from representing ,.any other person" other than the per se litigant or a member of rheir immed.iate ram y, Haitiri" proposed amendment to file a class action on behalfofsimilarly situated members ofihe Historical Accounting class, with Plaintiff representing the class as a pro se litigant would not sruvive ,,a dispositive prerrial motion." see Kemin poias, LC., 4@ F3d at 1355I Accordingy, rtainti'rrs proposed amendment to transform this case into a class action would be futile. . IV. CONCLUSION. For thcse rcrsos, lhc Oormnrrent's ABrrI26,2017 Motion For S"rnrrrfity ltdgn d it granbd. ,Sbe RCFC 56. In addition, PlaintilPs l[ay 23, 2017 Motion To Aaund rrd l[otion For Tbird Prty Rlprc@idive re denied. ,Sba RCPC l5(aX2); 83.1(a)(3). Accodingly, ths Clcrk of tbc Uniud States Cout of F€d€r.l Cllins i8 dircotrd to srhr ldgment on bdulf of the Oovcrnnont, ITISSOORDEREI'. SUTANG:BRAI}EN
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
