In the United States Court of Federal Claims
No. 16-954€
Filed: June 28,2017 FILED
***$***$*****$**$*$**$****$********$$$$$ l , § c FKW
* .SU`H 2 aj :`.'U£E
* U,S. COURT OF
SYLVAN GODFREY, * FEDERAL C|_A|i\/]S
$
_ , : Rules of the United States Court cf
Plam‘“ff»f’m Se’ * Federal Claims (“RCFC”) 15(3)(2)
* (Amendrnents Befcre Trial); 56
* (Sumrnary Judgment); 83.1(21)(3)
V * (Eligibility to Practice; Pro Se
* Litigants).
THE UNITED STATES, *
*
*
Defendant. *
ge
*
$***$$$*$$*$**$$*$****$*$*$$$$**********
Sylvan Godfrey, Marianna, Florida, Plaintiff, pro .s'e.
Courtney D. Enlow, United States Department cf Justice, Civil Division, Washington, D.C.,
Counsel for the Government.
MEMORANDUM OPlNION AND ORDER GRANTING THE GOVERNMEN'I"S
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
BRAI)EN, Chz'ef./udge.
I. RELEVANT FACTUAL BACKGROUND. 1
Sylvan Godfrey, a member cf the Sicux Indian Tribe of South Dakota, is currently Serving
a 365-month prison term at the Federal Corrections lnstitute (“FCI”) in Marianna, Florida that
commenced in 2013. See Godf‘ey v. Unired States, 131 Fed. Cl. 111, 114 (2017).
On Decernber 8, 2010, Congress enacted the Claims Resolution Act, Pub. L. No. 111-291,
124 Stat. 3064 (2010) that authorized, ratified, and confirmed a Decernber 9, 2009 Settlernent
l The relevant facts are derived from the cOurt’S March 20, 2017 Memorandum Opinion
And Order, Godj$'ey v. Um'ted Smtes, 131 Fed. Cl. 111, 114-15 (2017), and the April 26, 2017
chernment’S Appendix (“ch’t App’x at A1_A114”).
?UL7 L'+E[l [Il]|]l] 13'-11:. |JEEE
Agreernent in Cobell v. Salazar, Civil Action No. 96~l258, ECF 3660-2 (D.D.C. 2009) (“the
Settlement Agreement”), Whereby the Governrnent deposited $1.4 billion into the
Accounting/Trust Administration Fund, and $2 billion into the Trust Land Consolidation Fund.
Gov’t App’x at AS, A17. The Settlement Agreement also established a class of plaintiffs,
designated as the Historical Accounting Class, of Which Mr. Godt`rey is a member. See Godjrey,
131 Fed. Cl. at 115; see also Gov’t App’x at AS-A12. Under the terms of the December 9, 2009
Settlement Agreement, each member of the Historical Accounting Class is entitled to $1,000 from
the Accounting/Trust Admiuistration Fund. Gov’t App’x at A29. The Settlement Agreernent also
established a separate Trust Administration Class; members of that class received a payment of
3500 plus a prorated share of any funds left over from the Accounting/Trust Administration Fund.
Gov’t App’x at A30-A31. Mr. Godfrey is a member of the Trust Adrninistration Class. Gov’t
App’X at A101-A102, A110. Mr. Godfrey’s father, George Godfrey, Sr., also Was a member of
the two classes Gov’t App’x A102, A112, A114. Heirs of class members are also entitled to
paymentl Gov’t App’x at A100.
rl`he parties to the December 9, 2009 Settlernent Agreement designated Garden City Group,
lnc. (“GCG”) to serve as the Claims Administrator; GCG Was thereby charged With the duty to
“provide services to the Parties to facilitate administrative matters and distribution of the Amount
Payable for Each Valid Claim in accordance With the terms and conditions of [the December 9,
2009 Settlernent Agreement].” Gov’t App’x at A9. The December 9, 2009 Settlement Agreement
specified that the Crovernment “shall have no role in, nor be held responsible or liable in any Way
for, the Accounting Trust Adrninistration Fund, the holding or investment of the monies in the
Qualifying Bank or the distribution of such monies.” Gov’t App’x at A27.
II. PROCE])URAL HISTORY.
On August 4, 2016, l\/Ir. Godfrey (“Pla`mtiff”) filed a Complaint in the United States Court
of Federal Claims alleging that the Government violated his statutory and constitutional rights, as
Well as the terms of the December 9, 2009 Settlement Agreement. ECF No. 1 at 1_5 (“Compl.”).
On September 30, 2016, the Government filed a Motion To Dismiss the August 4, 2016
Complaint, pursuant to Rules of the United States Court of Federal Claims (“RCFC”) l2(b)(l) and
12(b)(6). ECF No. 8. Plaintiff’s Response to the September 30, 2016 Motion Was due on October
31, 2016. Weeks after the deadliue, however, Plaintiff failed to file any response or objection With
the court Therefore, on December 2, 2016, the court issued an Order instructing Plaintiff to show
cause Why this case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute ECF No. 9.
On December 19, 20l6, Plaintiff filed a l\/lotion For Extension OfTime To File Opposition
Tc Defendant’s Motion To Dismiss, To Ameud Complaint, And For 'l`hird Party Representative.
ECF No. 10. On January 3, 2016, the court granted Plaintiff an enlargement of time to file a
response to the Government’s Septernber 30, 2016 Motion To Dismiss, but did not rule on the
PlaintiffJ s December 19, 2016 l\/lotion To Amend or Motion For Third Party Representative. ECF
No. 11. On January 4, 2017, the Government filed a Response to Plaintiff’s December l9, 2016
Motions. ECF No. 12.
On January 18, 2017, Plaintiff filed a l\/Iotion To Alter Or Arnend The December 19, 2016
ludgrnent, that the court considered a response to the September 30, 20l6 Motion To Dismiss.
ECF No. 14. Therein, Plaintiff argued that: (1) another case pending before the United States
Court of Federal Claims, Redboy v. Unired States, No. 17~19, is “material to [Plaintiff’ s] ability to
state the jurisdiction of this court;” (2) the record reflects Plaintiff’s effort to oppose the
Government’s l\/lotion To Dismiss; and (3) Plaintiff “lacks the ability to pursue his rights as a truly
pro se litigant,” because FCI~Marianna did not afford Victor Fourstar, Plaintiff’ s “third-party
representative,” access to Plaintiff’s 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 12(b)(1), With regard to all of the claims alleged in the August 4, 2016
Complaint, except the claim that the Government failed to compensate Plaintiff fully as a member
of the Historical Accounting class. See Godji'ey, 131 Fed. Cl. at 123H24. Plaintiff’ s December
19, 2016 Motion For Third Party Representative requesting that Mr. Fourstar serve as Plaintiff`s
counsel, also vvas denied under RCFC 83.1(a)(3). Id. at 122~23.
On April 26, 2017, the Governrnent filed a Motion For Summary ludgment (“Gov’t Mot.”),
pursuant to RCFC 56, together With an Appendix. ECF No. 19. By the April 26, 2017 Motion
For Summary Judgment, the Governrnent argues that it Was under no contractual obligation to
make a payment to Plaintiff as an individual member of the Historical Accounting Class and, in
the alternative, that Plaintiff Was in fact paid fully as a member of the Historical Accounting Class.
Gov’t l\/lot. at l.
On May 24, 2017, Plaintiff filed a Response (“Pl. Resp.”) and requested leave to amend
the August 4, 2016 Complaint. Pl. Resp. at 1. Plaintiff"s May 24, 2017 Response Was Written,
signed, and filed by Mr. Fourstar. Pl. Resp. at 5a6.
On May 26, 2017, the Government filed a Motion To Strike Plaintiff"s May 24, 20l7
Response and a Reply ln Support Of Motion For Summary Judgment, a Response To Plaintiff’s
Request F or Third Party Representation, and a Response To Plaintiff"s Request For Leave To
Amend the August 4, 2016 Complaint (“Gov’t Reply”). On lurie 16, 2017, the court convened a
telephone conference, wherein the Government WithdreW the May 26, 2017 Motion To Stril