QUARTERMAN v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE USDA AND THE COMMODITY CREDIT CORPORATION CCC, et al.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
ATHENS DIVISION
JAMES QUARTERMAN, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
AGRICULTURE, et al.,
Defendants.
Case No. 3:25-cv-161-TES
ORDER
On November 6, 2025, Plaintiffs filed their Letter to this Court [Doc. 17] that
included several motions, requests and concerns. The Court responds as set forth in this
Order.
Plaintiffs initially filed their Complaint in the United States Court of Federal
Claims on July 14, 2025. [Doc. 1]. Plaintiffs John Quarterman, Felecia Quarterman, and
Nicole Quarterman assert various claims against the United States Department of
Agriculture (“USDA”), the Commodity Credit Corporation (“CCC”), and USDA
Secretary Brooke Rollins. See [Id.]. On September 12, 2025, the Court ordered the parties
to either file a joint motion to transfer or a joint notice setting forth the reasons why the
Court should not transfer the case sua sponte. [Doc. 5, p. 2]. In that same order, the
Court extended the deadline for the United States to answer the complaint by 30 days,
Case 3:25-cv-00161-TES Document 18 Filed 11/10/25 Page 1 of 6

2
making the new deadline to answer October 15, 2025. [Id.] After a joint motion to
transfer was filed on September 29, 2025 [Doc. 6], the case was transferred to the Middle
District of Georgia on September 29, 2025. [Doc. 7].
On October 16, 2025, Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Validity of CFC Order and
Request for Default, requesting that Defendants be found in default for failing to
answer by the Court of Federal Claims’ original October 15 deadline. [Doc. 11]. This
Court explained to Plaintiffs that, per Chief Judge Gardner’s order staying all civil cases
involving the United States and/or its agencies, the case has been stayed until Congress
authorized additional appropriations for the government to reopen. [Doc. 14]. This
Court also added that this case was stayed beginning on the effective date of Judge
Gardner’s order and that all parties must comply with Judge Gardner’s order regarding
extension of any and all applicable deadlines. [Doc. 13]; [Doc. 14]. A copy of Judge
Gardner’s Order can be found on the docket at Doc. 16.
Given that background, Plaintiffs first seek clarification “as to whether the stay
order issued by this Court on October 6, 2025, nullifies the CFC’s prior deadline for the
defendant’s answer, or whether that deadline remains operative until expressly
amended or vacated by this Court.” [Doc. 17, p. 2]. As explained by the Court in
previous orders, until Congress authorizes additional appropriations, the Court is and
will remain under a standing order that stays all deadlines in cases involving the United
States and its agencies. As such, Defendants cannot be in default while the stay is in
Case 3:25-cv-00161-TES Document 18 Filed 11/10/25 Page 2 of 6

3
place. When the stay is lifted, Defendants will have the remainder of the time they had
left to answer before the stay went into effect. The stay went into effect on October 6,
2025. [Doc. 16]. The United States Court of Federal Claims set Defendants’ deadline to
answer as October 15, 2025. [Doc. 11]. Thus, Defendants will have a minimum of nine
days to answer the Complaint once the stay is lifted in addition to any potential time
that could be granted to Defendants should they request (and the Court approve) an
extension to answer.
Plaintiffs also request “explicit permission to communicate with the U.S.
Attorney’s Office regarding settlement and procedural matters . . .” [Doc. 17, p. 3].
When a party acts as its own lawyer, it has a duty to communicate with opposing
parties just as a lawyer would do. Plaintiffs may consider this Order as explicit
permission to communicate with the U.S. Attorney’s Office. Again, as pro se litigants,
Plaintiffs have the affirmative responsibility to communicate with counsel for
Defendants. If Plaintiffs do not communicate with Defendants’ counsel, the case simply
will not move forward.
Next, Plaintiffs assert that “Plaintiff Nicole Quarterman’s role as a military
intelligence officer with high-level security clearances presents unique legal challenges”
so that they seek to have “all proceedings involving Nicole [Quarterman] comply with
CIPA and related statutes, and that any inquiries or requests for disclosure regarding
Case 3:25-cv-00161-TES Document 18 Filed 11/10/25 Page 3 of 6

4
Plaintiff Nicole be directed to the Court for review.”1 [Id.]. While the Court certainly
appreciates the need to protect national security and classified information, it is not
convinced that a case involving the denial of a loan application will present the
opportunity to breach the confidentiality of any such sensitive information. As such, the
Court will not invoke the CIPA and its significant and expensive burdens. If and when
an issue of national security actually becomes relevant in this case, the Court will then
reevaluate whether CIPA should be invoked.
Finally, Plaintiffs request “consideration for appointment of counsel due to
national security implications, or, alternatively, waiver to appear to protect sensitive
information.” [Doc. 17, pp. 3–4]. A civil litigant has no absolute constitutional right to
the appointment of counsel. Poole v. Lambert, 819 F.2d 1025, 1028 (11th Cir. 1987).
Instead, the appointment of counsel is a privilege, which is justified only by exceptional
circumstances, such as when the facts and legal issues are so novel or complex as to
require the assistance of counsel. Id. at 1028. Here, the Court has considered the matter’s
complexity and Plaintiffs’ ability to prosecute their claims. The Court is unable to
identify any exceptional circumstances, such as novel or complex facts and legal issues,
that would require the appointment of counsel. As such, the Court exercises its
discretion and denies the appointment of counsel for Plaintiffs. See 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(1).
1 CIPA is the acronym for the Classified Information Procedures Act.
Case 3:25-cv-00161-TES Document 18 Filed 11/10/25 Page 4 of 6

5
Finally, Plaintiffs request “clarification of the applicable procedures and
deadlines for seeking an interlocutory appeal to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals to
review a non-final order . . . entered on October 16, 2025, in light of the current stay of
proceedings in this case, ordered on October 6, 2025.” [Doc. 17, p. 4]. The Court cannot
issue legal advice to Plaintiffs or coach them on any appellate procedures. They are
representing themselves and they must answer that question for themselves.
However, the Plaintiffs clearly ask the Court to certify two questions for
interlocutory appeal: (1) Whether the Court’s October 16, 2025, order “that plaintiffs did
not receive notice of until October 27, 2025 (tolling the 10-day appeal right) issues under
a stay is valid,” and (2) whether “previously issues orders from the transferee Court of
Federal Claims (CFC) remain valid after being transferred unless explicitly changed by
the transferee court FDC.” The Court may issue an interlocutory appeal when it certifies
in writing that an order involves a “controlling question of law,” there is “substantial
ground for difference of opinion,” and an “immediate appeal may materially advance
the litigation.” 28 U.S.C. 1292(b). The Court find that its October 16, 2025, order does not
meet the statutory criteria outlined above. To the extent Plaintiffs intended for their
filing to request certification of interlocutory appeal, that request is denied.
In sum, this case remains under Chief Judge Gardner’s order staying all cases
involving the United States and its agencies. Given that order, Defendants will have a
minimum of nine days to respond to Plaintiffs’ Complaint once the stay is lifted.
Case 3:25-cv-00161-TES Document 18 Filed 11/10/25 Page 5 of 6

6
Additionally, because Plaintiffs are pro se litigants, they are allowed and encouraged to
speak to counsel for Defendants. The Court declines to invoke CIPA at this stage and
furthermore declines to appoint counsel for Plaintiffs. Finally, the Court declines to
issue a certificate of interlocutory appeal for its October 16, 2025 order.
SO ORDERED, this 10th day of November, 2025.
S/ Tilman E. Self, III
TILMAN E. SELF, III, JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
Case 3:25-cv-00161-TES Document 18 Filed 11/10/25 Page 6 of 6