HAWKINS v. USA

Filing 14

Order of Dismissal granting 6 Motion to Dismiss; granting 2 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis for the purpose of resolving the motion to dismiss, and denying plaintiff's request to appoint counsel. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment. Signed by Judge Nancy B. Firestone. (dls) Copy to parties.

0fiilfrffi,frfrdAt
lJntlSo

@nitr! btstts

@ourt of

ftltrsl

No. 14-1134C
(Filed: February 3, 2015)
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

@tsfms

FILED
FEB

- 3 2015

U,S. COURT OF
FEDERAL CIAIMS

ISREAL OWEN HAWKINS. JR..
Pro Se Plaintiff,

Pro Se; RCFC 83.1(aX3); Denial
Motion to Appoint Counsel.

of

THE UNITED STATES,
Defendant.

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT
Pending before the court is defendant the United States's ("the government")
motion to dismiss the pls re complaint filed by plaintiff Isreal Owen Hawkins, Jr. ("Mr'
Hawkins").r In his complaint, titled "shareholder Civil Complaint For Violating The
Fifth Amendment Taking Clause And Wrongful Interference With Commerce"' plaintiff
seeks damages in the amount of $25 billion in connection with the alleged unlawful
seizure of Petro America Corporation's ("the corporation") "operational capital anc
liquidity corporate account." Civil Complaint at2. }l{'r. Hawkins, a shareholder in the
corporation, claims to be representing both the corporation and a class ofother
shareholders holding stock in the corporation. The defendant has moved to dismiss the
complaint, arguing that the case must be dismissed because Mr. Hawkins, as a plq-qe
plaintiff, cannot represent a corporation and cannot represent the class members he seeks
to represent. The court agrees with the govemment for the reasons that follow.

Under the Rules of the United States Court of Federal Claims ("RCFC"), a nonlawyer may represent only himself and immediate family members. RCFC 83.1(a)(3)
I Plaintiff, who is currently incarcerated in Federal Correctional Complex Forrest City-Medium,
Fonest City, Arizona, filed his original complaint on behalf of Petro America Corp. and its
shareholders on November 21 ,2014. The court allowed the plaintiff to file an amended
complaint to correct a mistake in that document on January 20,2015. The court also allowed
plaintiffto file, on that same date, a Supplemental Swom Statement of Fact signed by plaintiff,
Isreal Owen Hawkins. Jr. This order is based on the court's review of these recently filed
documents.

("An individual who is not an attorney may represent oneself or a member of one's
immediate family, but may not represent a corporation, an entity, or any other person in
any proceeding before this court."). This rule has been held to apply to individual
shareholders seeking to represent the interests ofa corporation. Specifically, the Federal
Circuit has held that a corporation may not be represented by a shareholder, appearing
pro se. Talasila. Inc. v. United States, 240 F.3d 1064, 1067 (Fed. Cir. 2001); see also 7A
Wright, Miller & Kane, Federal Practice and Procedure $ 1769.1 (3d ed' Sept. 2014)
("Class representatives cannot appear plg-qe."). The circuit has held that the rules of this
court are "clear and unqualified" and require, without exception, that a corporation be
represented by an attomey. Talasila, 240 F.3d aI 1067 . In such circumstances, Mr.
Hawkins cannot maintain this action on behalf of the corporation. In addition, Mr.
Hawkins cannot represent individuals who are not members of his immediate family and
thus may not bring a class action on behalfofthe corporation's shareholders. Rose v.
*l & n.1 (Fed. Cl. Oct'29'2010)
United States, No. 10-224, 2010 WL 4340950, at
Mr. Hawkins'
lrejecting pta_le plaintiffls attempt to represent a class).2 Accordingly,
complaint must be dismissed.

CONCLUSION
For these reasons, the govemment's motion to dismiss is GRANTED and the
clerk is directed to dismiss the complaint.r No costs.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

NAN

The court recognizes that the plaintiffhas asked the court to appoint counsel, but.the plaintilfis
not entitled to court-appointed counsel. Under 28 U.S.C. $ l9l5(e)(1)' this Court has the
authority to "request in utto.n.y to represent any person unable to afford counsel 28 U.S.C. $
1915(e)i1); see also 28 U.S.C.$ 2503(d)) ("[F]or the purpose of construing section[] . . . 1915 ' .
of tnii iitte, tfre United States Court of Federal Claims shall be deemed to be a court of the
United States."). The Federal Circuit has explained, however, that "[i]n civil proceedings, . . . ,
the right to counsel is highly circumscribed, and has been authorized in exceedingly restricted
cironirstances." Lariscev v.United States, 861 F.2d 1267 (Fed. Cir. 1988). The circuit has stated
issue
that civil cases involving violations of the Fifth Amendment takings clause, like the one_at
here, do not merit the appointment of counsel. Id, atl271. As such, the request is DENIED.

2

"

in forma pauperis, DocketNo.2, is GRANTED solely for
purposes of resolving the motion to dismiss'

3

plaintiff

s request to proceed