Order on Motion to Intervene (Stephen Wallace), State of Ohio v. Secretary, Department of Treasury (docketed as v. Yellen), No. 1:21-cv-00181 (S.D. Ohio), Doc. 13 (March 30, 2021)

Summary

Order in State of Ohio v. Secretary, Department of Treasury, et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-181, Doc. 13, Southern District of Ohio, Western Division, dated March 30, 2021. The Court considers Stephen Wallace's pro se Emergency Motion to Intervene (Doc. 7) in Ohio's suit challenging the "Tax Mandate" in the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021. It states that Wallace seeks intervenor status to challenge Congress's allegedly wrongful expenditure of federal funds and to procure a protective order with witness protection. The Court finds that Wallace has not shown that the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure warrant granting intervenor status, citing the taxpayer standing doctrine, and denies the Motion. The signature block names Douglas R. Cole, United States District Judge.

Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used

Full text

   Case: 1:21-cv-00181-DRC Doc #: 13 Filed: 03/30/21 Page: 1 of 5 PAGEID #: 84




                       UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                        SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
                            WESTERN DIVISION

 STATE OF OHIO,

              Plaintiff,
                                                 Case No. 1:21-cv-181
       v.                                        JUDGE DOUGLAS R. COLE

 SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF
 TREASURY, et al.

              Defendants.

                                       ORDER

      This cause comes before the Court on Stephen Wallace’s pro se Emergency

Motion to Intervene (Doc. 7). As best the Court can tell, Wallace seeks intervenor

status (1) to challenge Congress’s allegedly wrongful expenditure of federal funds,

and (2) to procure a protective order with witness protection. For the reasons set forth

below, the Court finds that Wallace has not shown that the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure warrant granting him intervenor status. Thus, the Court DENIES

Wallace’s Motion.

                                  BACKGROUND

      Plaintiff State of Ohio (“Ohio”) filed this suit to challenge an allegedly

unconstitutional provision, which Ohio labels the “Tax Mandate,” in the American

Rescue Plan Act of 2021. (Compl., Doc. 1, PageID #2). Under the Tax Mandate, the

federal funds provided to Ohio could not be “directly or indirectly” used to offset a

“reduction in net tax revenue.” (Id.). Ohio believes that this condition, tied to $5.5

billion issued to alleviate economic damage caused by the COVID-19 pandemic,
   Case: 1:21-cv-00181-DRC Doc #: 13 Filed: 03/30/21 Page: 2 of 5 PAGEID #: 85




exceeds Congress’s Spending Clause authority. That is because the provision’s

allegedly coercive nature offers Ohio “no real choice” but to accept the money and

concomitant tax policy restrictions. (Id. at 9). Ohio also alleges that the Tax Mandate

violates the Tenth Amendment by flouting the anti-commandeering doctrine. (Id. at

10). On March 17, 2021, Ohio moved for a preliminary injunction enjoining

enforcement of the Tax Mandate. (See generally Pl.’s Mot. for Prelim. Inj., Doc. 25).

      On March 24, 2021, Wallace filed the instant Emergency Motion to Intervene.

Although somewhat difficult to follow, Wallace’s Motion appears to allege

misappropriation of taxpayer funds in relation to the American Rescue Plan Act of

2021, and also asserts a potential conspiracy through which Wallace has been

“Stalked for Abduction & Termination” by government officials. (Mot. to Intervene,

Doc. 7, PageID #59–60). Appealing to “the Interest of Justice” and the “National

Security of our Republic,” Wallace seeks a protective order and witness protection

along with his challenge to federal disbursement of federal funds. (Id. at #60–61).

                               LAW AND ANALYSIS

      Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24 governs motions to intervene. Providence

Baptist Church v. Hillandale Comm., Ltd., 245 F.3d 308, 315 (6th Cir. 2005). That

rule recognizes two types of intervention: intervention of right and permissive

intervention. As Wallace has not identified which type of intervention he seeks, the

Court considers both possibilities in turn.

      Let’s begin with intervention of right. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

24(a), courts “must permit” intervention of right if either (1) a federal statute gives


                                              2
   Case: 1:21-cv-00181-DRC Doc #: 13 Filed: 03/30/21 Page: 3 of 5 PAGEID #: 86




the movant “an unconditional right to intervene,” or (2) the movant “claims an

interest relating to the property or transaction that is the subjection of the action,

and is so situated that disposing of the action may as a practical matter impair or

impede the movant’s ability to protect its interest, unless existing parties adequately

represent that interest.” In other words, courts must grant intervenor status to

anyone who satisfies either element of Rule 24(a). But Wallace stumbles along both

paths to intervention of right. As to the federal statute issue, Wallace cites no federal

statute giving him a right to intervene in this matter and, to the Court’s knowledge,

no statute would do so. So that means Wallace must identify an interest in “the

property or transaction that is the subject” of Ohio’s lawsuit, or else he cannot secure

intervention of right.

      Here, the only interest Wallace conceivably alleges that relates to the subject

of Ohio’s lawsuit, i.e., the constitutionality of the Tax Mandate, is his generalized

interest as a citizen and taxpayer in Congress’s proper disbursement of government

funds. But that is a nonstarter given the taxpayer standing doctrine. “As a general

matter, the interest of a federal taxpayer in seeing that Treasury funds are spent in

accordance with the Constitution does not give rise to the kind of redressable

‘personal injury’ required for Article III standing.” Hein v. Freedom From Religion

Found., Inc., 551 U.S. 587, 599 (2007). Here, Wallace fails to assert any interest in

Ohio’s suit that goes beyond “the interests of the public at large” in ensuring that tax

money is spent wisely and lawfully. Id. at 601. And that interest does not permit him

entry into Ohio’s lawsuit. See Ark Encounter, LLC v. Stewart, 311 F.R.D. 414, 419



                                           3
   Case: 1:21-cv-00181-DRC Doc #: 13 Filed: 03/30/21 Page: 4 of 5 PAGEID #: 87




(E.D. Ky. 2015) (reasoning that “any taxpayer’s generalized concern about the use of

their tax dollars” does not support a would-be intervenor’s “substantial legal interest”

in a suit). Thus, Wallace has no viable interest in Ohio’s lawsuit that supports

intervention of right.

       That leaves permissive intervention. As the term suggests, the Court may

employ its discretion to grant intervenor status under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

24(b), but it is by no means compelled to do so. Rule 24(b) allows courts to grant

permissive intervention to a movant who either (1) “is given a conditional right to

intervene by a federal statute,” or (2) “has a claim or defense that shares with the

main action a common question of law or fact.” Wallace fails to satisfy either ground

for permissive intervention for the same reasons discussed above. First, he cites no

federal statute providing a conditional right to intervene. Second, Wallace’s only

claim that relates to Ohio’s suit is his allegation that the American Rescue Plan Act

of 2021 has unlawfully appropriated funds. Even if the Court were inclined to exercise

its discretion and permit Wallace to intervene, the taxpayer standing doctrine would

squarely preclude Wallace from joining Ohio’s action based solely on his interest as a

federal taxpayer in seeing government money spent in line with the Constitution.

       As for his other allegations, Wallace is certainly free to file a separate

complaint addressing any alleged “stalking” or other government plots against him.

But his concerns in that regard do not raise issues relating to the constitutional

challenge that Ohio mounts against the Tax Mandate in this action.1 Thus such


1 Wallace also filed a Supplement to his Emergency Motion addressing the government’s

alleged stalking (Doc. 12). That filing ostensibly serves as Wallace’s “Last Will & Testament”
                                              4
   Case: 1:21-cv-00181-DRC Doc #: 13 Filed: 03/30/21 Page: 5 of 5 PAGEID #: 88




allegations do not support intervention here. Accordingly, the Court DENIES

Wallace’s Motion (Doc. 7).

       SO ORDERED.

March 30, 2021
DATE                                             DOUGLAS R. COLE
                                                 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE




should he be executed by government-employed hitmen. (Id. at #80). It appears that Wallace
wishes to assign any potential “relator recovery” funds to the Knights of Columbus. (Id.). As
with Wallace’s Emergency Motion, the concerns expressed in this Supplement do not touch
on Ohio’s challenge to the Tax Mandate. Accordingly, any rights Wallace wishes to preserve
relating to his stalking claim would be better addressed in a matter separate from Ohio’s
case.
                                             5


File and source

File

13-order-on-motion-to-intervene.pdf

Size

128,310 bytes

SHA-256

62153aadc8ea98baa07a9cf7898274de13cc18a5e4fa5b2004871c1fae0afe01

Our copy

13-order-on-motion-to-intervene.pdf

Original

storage.courtlistener.com