Crandell v. United States of America, 2:18-cv-00124

Relator John Crandell (pro se) filed a qui tam False Claims Act suit alleging Hardy County Rural Development Authority (HCRDA) violated EDA grant terms by selling park property with improper/omitted industrial-use covenants and failing to report sales to the EDA.
The case was initially sealed under 31 U.S.C. § 3730(b)(2) while the United States investigated; the Government declined to intervene and moved to dismiss under § 3730(c)(2)(A).
The United States argued it has discretion to dismiss qui tam suits, that a pro se relator cannot represent the United States in FCA litigation, and alternatively that Crandell failed to state viable claims under Rule 12(b)(6).
Crandell opposed dismissal, disputing the Government’s evaluation and asserting he had made adequate pre-suit disclosures and hoped to retain counsel.
The magistrate judge evaluated claims under the FCA, regulatory causes of action tied to 13 C.F.R., several criminal statutes (18 U.S.C.), and a West Virginia Freedom of Information Act claim, and recommended dismissal in full.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a pro se relator may pursue a qui tam FCA action	Crandell proceeded pro se and sought to pursue the FCA claims; said disclosures were adequate	Government: pro se relators cannot prosecute qui tam actions; it may dismiss under § 3730(c)(2)(A)	Dismissed: pro se relator cannot bring qui tam; FCA claims recommended dismissed
Whether the relator can enforce 13 C.F.R. (EDA) regulations or § 3211 authority	Crandell claimed a "chain of authority" via grant conditions and § 3211 to sue to enforce EDA covenants	Government: EDA/regulatory enforcement belongs to the federal government; relator lacks standing to enforce those regulations	Dismissed: no private right for relator to enforce 13 C.F.R.; those rights rest with the Government
Whether criminal statutes (18 U.S.C. §§ 1031, 371, 1002) create private civil causes of action	Crandell alleged fraud/conspiracy/false papers against the U.S. under these statutes	Government: criminal statutes do not imply a private civil remedy for relator	Dismissed: criminal statutes do not create a private civil right for relator
Whether federal court has jurisdiction over West Virginia FOIA claim	Crandell asserted HCRDA violated WV FOIA and sought relief in federal court	Government: WV FOIA is a state law claim; no federal question and amount in controversy insufficient for diversity	Dismissed: court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over state FOIA claim

Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (plausibility standard for pleading)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937 (2009) (pleading must permit reasonable inference of liability)
United States ex rel. Brooks v. Lockheed Martin Corp., [citation="237 F. App'x 802"] (4th Cir. 2007) (lay persons may not prosecute qui tam suits pro se)
United States ex rel. Lu v. Ou, 368 F.3d 773 (7th Cir. 2004) (same principle barring pro se relators)
United States ex rel. Sequoia Orange Co. v. Baird-Neece Packing Corp., 151 F.3d 1139 (9th Cir. 1998) (two-part test for Government dismissal of qui tam actions)
Arbaugh v. Y & H Corp., 546 U.S. 500 (2006) (federal-question jurisdiction principles)
Touche Ross & Co. v. Redington, 442 U.S. 560 (1979) (existence of private right of action requires statutory construction)