Court Opinion

ID: 9368365
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-03 21:01:54.572725+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:07.406803
License: Public Domain

In the United States Court of Federal Claims
                                    No. 20-359C
                              (Filed February 3, 2023)
                             NOT FOR PUBLICATION

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
                                  *
BRENDA BRASWELL, et al.,          *
                                  *
                 Plaintiffs,      *
                                  *
      v.                          *
                                  *
THE UNITED STATES,                *
                                  *
                 Defendant.       *
                                  *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

                                      ORDER

        On January 30, 2023, the Clerk’s office received from Walter Reeves of
Atlanta, Georgia, a document entitled “petition to file motion,” asking “to be listed
as an Interested Party” in this case. Although Mr. Reeves does not reference any
rule, it appears that he is attempting to invoke Rule 14 of the Rules of the United
States Court of Federal Claims (RCFC). See RCFC 14(b). Rule 14 sets the manner
and methods by which the Court “on motion or on its own” may formally notify “any
person with the legal capacity to sue or to be sued who is alleged to have an interest
in the subject matter of the suit.” RCFC 14(b)(1). Motions for notice must “state
the person’s interest in the pending action.” RCFC 14(b)(2)(ii).

        Because Mr. Reeves is representing himself pro se, he can be forgiven for
misunderstanding the purpose of this rule. Rule 14 notice ensures “constitutionally
adequate” due process by informing non-parties of “the pendency of the action and
the opportunity to join as parties.” RCFC 14 cmt. (2002). Motions under the rule
are to be brought by a party, either a plaintiff or the United States. See RCFC
(2)(b)(i)–(ii), 14(b)(4). “Interested parties” within the meaning of this rule are
people who may suffer an “alleged preclusive effect on subsequent litigation” or
otherwise appear to have a “direct pecuniary interest in the outcome.” Bird v.
United States, 51 Fed. Cl. 536, 538, 541 (2002) (internal quotation omitted).
“Interest” should be interpreted broadly and includes, for instance, indemnifiers or
those who possessing a partial property interest in the subject matter of the
litigation. See, e.g., Science Applications Int’l Corp. v. United States, 148 Fed. Cl.
268, 271 (2020); John R. Sand & Gravel Co. v. United States, 60 Fed. Cl 272, 273
(2004). But mere “appreciation” of a lawsuit and its theories is not enough.

       Mister Reeves is obviously not a party to this case, so the Court will construe
his document as a request for the Court to provide notice sua sponte. See RCFC
14(b)(1). But according to the information in his submission, Mr. Reeves is a
mayoral candidate who is involved in labor organizing. Seemingly, he hopes to
encourage prison guards and other federal workers to join this putative class action.
Nothing in the copious materials that Mr. Reeves has supplied indicates that he is a
potential intervenor, owns a property interest at issue, or is at any risk of
preclusion. Mister Reeves may be personally concerned about this suit, but he is
not legally interested. Therefore, his request for notice as an interested party is
DENIED. The Clerk is directed not to file Mr. Reeves’s document and to mail this
order to the address that he provided.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

                                       s/ Victor J. Wolski
                                       VICTOR J. WOLSKI
                                       Senior Judge

                                         -2-