Davis v. United States Department of Health & Human Services
2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 131796
| D.D.C. | 2013Background
- Davis brought two qui tam actions on behalf of the United States against the District of Columbia: the 489 action and the 629 action, with the United States declining to intervene in both.
- Davis subsequently sued the federal government and its attorneys under the APA for actions related to those qui tam actions, not for the underlying fraud claims themselves.
- The 489 action was dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction because the allegations had been publicly disclosed and Davis lacked original-source status.
- The 629 action was initially dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, reversed by the D.C. Circuit, and remanded; the current proceedings involve cross-motions on the merits.
- The Court analyzes whether the government’s prosecutorial discretion in qui tam matters is reviewable and whether Davis states plausible claims for fraud on the court or other federal-law violations.
- Ultimately, the Court grants the government’s Rule 12(b)(6) motion and dismisses the suit.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the APA claims are reviewable against agency discretion. | Davis asserts government inaction violated the act and law. | Discretion to intervene is unfettered; non-intervention is presumptively unreviewable. | Yes, the claims are unreviewable; dismissal affirmed. |
| Whether the case states a claim for fraud on the court. | Federal attorneys possessed evidence and withheld it, corrupting the court record. | Nondisclosure by a non-party attorney does not constitute fraud on the court; record was not misled. | No plausible fraud-on-the-court claim; dismissal affirmed. |
| Whether other alleged federal-law or professional-conduct violations state a claim. | Government attorneys engaged in misconduct in the qui tam actions. | Allegations are conclusory and insufficient to state a claim; agency discretion bars relief. | No viable claims; dismissal affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Swift v. United States, 318 F.3d 250 (D.C. Cir. 2003) (unfettered government discretion to dismiss qui tam actions)
- Heckler v. Chaney, 470 U.S. 821 (U.S. 1985) (agency decision not to enforce generally unreviewable)
- Davis ex rel. Davis v. District of Columbia, 679 F.3d 832 (D.C. Cir. 2012) (origin-source and False Claims Act context for DavisIII)
- Findley v. FPC-Boron Emps.' Club, 105 F.3d 675 (D.C. Cir. 1997) (original-source and public disclosure framework)
- Hoyte v. American National Red Cross, 518 F.3d 61 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (supports discretionary intervention analysis)
- Baltia Air Lines, Inc. v. Transaction Mgmt., Inc., 98 F.3d 640 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (fraud-on-the-court standards discussed)
- Rockwell International Corp. v. United States, 549 U.S. 457 (U.S. 2007) (Supreme Court on origins of FCA interpretations)
- Sierra Club v. Jackson, 648 F.3d 848 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (agency-action review under APA §701(a)(2))