Downey v. United States
1:19-cv-06646
S.D.N.Y.Aug 5, 2019Background
- Pro se plaintiff Mark Downey filed two long, substantially similar complaints in June–July 2019 asserting qui tam claims and various federal causes of action against the United States; both were filed IFP.
- Complaints sought relief under the False Claims Act (FCA) and other statutes, alleging large-scale schemes to generate federal revenue and sharing for plaintiffs.
- The Court consolidated the two actions for purposes of the order and reviewed them under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
- The Court found Downey’s FCA qui tam claims defective because pro se litigants lack statutory standing to pursue qui tam suits on behalf of the United States.
- The Court concluded Downey’s remaining claims are frivolous—rising to the level of irrational or wholly incredible—and dismissed them for failure to state a claim and as frivolous.
- Because Downey has filed numerous similar, meritless suits in multiple districts, the Court ordered him to show cause within 30 days why he should not be barred from filing further IFP actions in this Court without prior permission; the Court also denied IFP status for any appeal as not taken in good faith.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Statutory standing to bring FCA qui tam claims | Downey proceeded pro se and asserted qui tam claims under the FCA to recover for the government | United States argued pro se relators lack statutory standing to pursue qui tam FCA suits | Court dismissed FCA qui tam claims: pro se relator lacks standing to bring FCA qui tam actions |
| Sufficiency / frivolousness of remaining claims | Downey alleged broad, extraordinary schemes and relief under various federal statutes | United States argued claims are baseless and legally untenable | Court found claims frivolous or irrational and dismissed under § 1915(e)(2)(B) |
| Filing injunction / pre-filing restriction | Downey did not offer justification in pleadings to avoid restriction despite extensive prior litigation | Government cited plaintiff’s large number of similar dismissed suits and an existing bar in another district | Court ordered Downey to show cause within 30 days why he should not be barred from filing future IFP suits without prior permission; will impose injunction if no good cause shown |
| In forma pauperis status on appeal | Downey sought IFP treatment for appeal | Government opposed good-faith basis for appeal | Court certified any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied IFP for appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- United States ex rel. Eisenstein v. City of New York, 556 U.S. 928 (2009) (explains qui tam procedure and government involvement in FCA suits)
- United States ex rel. Mergent Servs. v. Flaherty, 540 F.3d 89 (2d Cir. 2008) (pro se litigants lack statutory standing to pursue qui tam FCA claims)
- Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319 (1989) (frivolous claim standard for IFP dismissals)
- Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25 (1992) (factual frivolousness and irrational/wholly incredible allegations)
- Livingston v. Adirondack Beverage Co., 141 F.3d 434 (2d Cir. 1998) (standards for frivolousness under § 1915)
- Triestman v. Federal Bureau of Prisons, 470 F.3d 471 (2d Cir. 2006) (pro se pleadings construed liberally to raise strongest claims suggested)
- Moates v. Barkley, 147 F.3d 207 (2d Cir. 1998) (procedural requirement to give notice and opportunity before imposing filing injunction)
- Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438 (1962) (good-faith requirement for IFP appeals)