### UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

In re BLACK FARMERS DISCRIMINAnON LITIGATION 

# FILED AUG 26 2011 Clerk. U.S. District &Bankruptcy Courts forthe District of Columbia ) ) ) ) 

### Misc. No. 08-0511 (PLF) This document relates to: ) ) ) ) ) 

### ALL CASES

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER REGARDING FAIRNESS HEARING On May 13, 2011, the Court entered an Order conditionally certifYing a plaintiffs' class in this matter and granting preliminary approval ofa settlement agreement proposed by the defendant, the United States Department ofAgriculture, and a large group ofplaintiffs. Before granting final approval ofa settlement agreement that would resolve the claims ofthe members ofa certified class, the Court must determine that the terms ofthe settlement are fair. See FED. R. CIY. P. 23(e); Pigford v. Glickman, 185 F.R.D. 82,98-99 (D.D.C. 1999). Members ofthe class have been notified ofthe conditional class certification in this matter and ofthe material terms ofthe proposed settlement agreement. They were also informed that objections to the proposed settlement by any class member would be considered by the Court iffiled by August 12,2011. Class members were invited to present any objections they might have at a fairness hearing to be held on September 1,2011 at 9:30 a.m. in Courtroom 20, the Ceremonial Courtroom on the sixth floor ofthe E. Barrett Prettyman United States Courthouse.


### A. Objections and Other Correspondence The Court, as well as counsel for the plaintiffs' class and for the defendant, received a large volume ofcorrespondence in response to the circulation ofnotices announcingthe proposed settlement. A number ofindividuals who sent letters concerningthe case asked to be added to the list ofplaintiffs, requested legal advice, or explained whythey believed they are entitled to reliefunderthe proposed settlement agreement. These individuals should be aware that the Court cannot grant any ofthe requests made in those letters. Under the proposed settlement agreement, neutral third parties

- not this Court

- will determine who is a member ofthe plaintiffs' class and who is eligible to receive an award. No one can "sign up" for this lawsuit or submit a Track A orTrack B claim by writing a letter to the Court, and neither the Courtnor its staffmaygive any legal advice about howto participate in this action. Any questions about the proposed settlement agreement or requests to participate in the claims resolution process should be addressed to class counselorto another attorney
- not to the Court. The Court has also received hundreds ofcopies ofa document entitled "Pro Se Petition/Objectionto Pigford 2." Although each copy ofthis document is signed by a different individual or set ofindividuals, it appears that the content ofthe document was prepared by one person, Ms. Thedford A. Rowser-Bey, an individual who styles herselfa "legal researcher" and who has repeatedly attempted to inject herselfinto this case and its predecessors, Pigford v. Glickman, Civil ActionNo. 97-1978, and Brewington v. Glickman, Civil Action No. 98-1693. The Courthas been informed that a large number ofpeop1e have paid Ms. Rowser-Bey a fee in exchange for her submission ofa copy ofher "Pro Se Petition/Objection" ontheirbehalf. The Court is concerned that any moneypaidto Ms. Rowser-Bey by potential class members in this
case may have been wasted because the "Pro Se Petition/Objection" drafted by Ms. Rowser-Bey achieves nothing at all for those individuals. Itdoes not present a coherent objection to the proposed settlement agreement, nor does it serve as a means of"signing up" for this case.

2While potential class members are entitled to seek assistance where theyplease, the Court advises them that Ms. Rowser-Bey is not a lawyer, and she has previously caused widespread confusion among Pigford litigants by "misstat[ing] the legal importance ofvarious Orders and Opinions issued by this Court, and misinterpret[ing] the meaning ofwords and sentences in those Orders and Opinions." Pigford v. Johanns, 505 F. Supp. 2d 174, 175 (D.D.C. 2007). Based on her submissions inthis case and in Pigford v. Glickman, it does not appearthat she understands the law orthe facts involved in eithermatter. Her interference withthe proceedings inPigford v. Glickmanwas so severe and persistentthatthe Court was forced to bar her from filing documents in the case. See id. 

### It is highly unlikely that she can be ofanyhelp to potential claimants inthis matter. B. 

### Procedurefor September 1

### Fairness Hearing In additionto the correspondence discussed above, the Court has received timely written objections to the proposed settlement from the following individuals or groups: Justin and WillaFouts; BookerT. Woodard; Diahann C. Stevens; Thomas Burrell, President ofthe Black Farmers and Agriculturalists Association; Larry Morgan, M.C. Moore, Willie Parker, Sr., Vernon Ross, Sr., Blanche Ross, Lewis Walker, Thomas Walker, Inez Washington, Steven Bailey, and O.C. Anthony (all represented by attorney Precious Martin); Errol Von Hart; Eddie Lee Gray; Muhommad Rabbalaa andHenry Burris; Karla K. Adams and Terrie L., Theodore B., Brad E., Kerry F., andAva L. Bates; Lillie M. Wingard; Robert E. Walker; and M. Murline Price. The Court also will considerthe late-filed objections ofRalph Paige, Executive Director ofthe Federation ofSouthern Cooperatives Land Assistance Fund, and Dr. Dewayne L. Goldmon, Chairman ofthe National Black Agricultural Alliance. Finally, the following
3individuals have submitted timely requests to speak at the fairness hearing, although those requests were unaccompanied by any written objections: Bernice Atchison; Joyce A. Smith; Doris Gray; William Paramore; and GloriaDavis Gilmore.] In light ofthe foregoing, it is hereby ORDEREDthat at the start ofthe fairness hearing, Class Counsel and government counsel will each make shortpresentations explaining why their client or clients are moving for final approval ofthe settlement, after which Class Counsel will explain howthe proposed settlement will be implemented ifapproved; and it is FURTHER ORDERED that for eachperson or group listed as having filed a written objection ora request to speak, a representative will be allotted time to present oral objections atthe fairness hearing. Precious Martin, onbehalfofhis clients, andrepresentatives ofthe Black Farmers and Agriculturalists Association, the Federation ofSouthern Cooperatives Land Assistance Fund, and the National BlackAgricultural Alliance will each be permitted to speak for up to fifteen minutes. All other objectors will be allotted five minutes to speak. SO ORDERED.

DATE: 

# tS'**I~** f.a 

# I"**~.JL ~cX;.IL..**  PAUL 

### L. FRIEDMAN United States District Judge

The Courthas also received requests to speak from Gregory 

### K. Chestnut and John Boyd, President ofthe National Black Farmers Association. The Court has not yet decided whetherto grant those requests. 4