Hester v. State of North Carolina
5:17-cv-00174
E.D.N.C.Sep 13, 2017Background
- Valerie Hester, proceeding pro se, moved to proceed in forma pauperis and filed a complaint seeking money damages and criminal referral arising from denial of Social Security disability benefits.
- Defendants named include the Social Security Commissioner (official capacity), the Acting Commissioner substituted, and Hester’s former attorney, Jonathan Biser.
- Hester asserted claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (due process), the False Claims Act (qui tam), and torts (negligence, fraud, IIED), and requested criminal prosecution under federal law.
- Many of the same claims had been litigated previously in the Middle District of North Carolina and dismissed as frivolous or for lack of jurisdiction/immunity.
- The magistrate judge granted IFP status but conducted a frivolity review under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) and recommended dismissal of the complaint as frivolous.
- The court relied on sovereign/immunity doctrines, Schweiker v. Chilicky (bar on money damages for wrongful denial of benefits), lack of FCA predicate, and absence of state-action for the private attorney.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Entitlement to proceed IFP | Hester alleged poverty; seeks waiver of fees | No contest; court must evaluate affidavit | IFP granted (Adkins standard met) |
| Complaint frivolous / dismiss under §1915 | Claims challenge denial of benefits and seek damages/criminal relief | Prior rulings, sovereign immunity, and legal precedent bar relief | Complaint recommended dismissed as frivolous under §1915(e)(2)(B) |
| False Claims Act (qui tam) | Defendants submitted false documents to obtain federal funds | FCA requires a claim for money/property from U.S.; no such allegations against Biser | Qui tam allegations dismissed for failure to state an FCA claim |
| §1983 / Due Process and Private Attorney Liability | Hester says constitutional due process violated and attorney conspired with state actors | Government defendants immune; Biser was not a state actor and represented Hester adversarially | §1983 claims barred by immunity; Biser not acting under color of law; claims fail |
| Request for criminal prosecution | Seeks federal criminal investigation/prosecution of defendants | Private citizens have no right to compel criminal prosecution | Request denied; no private right to require prosecution (dismissed) |
Key Cases Cited
- Adkins v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 335 U.S. 331 (establishing poverty standard for IFP)
- Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319 (frivolous suit lacks arguable basis in law or fact)
- Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25 (court may reject pro se factual contentions that are baseless)
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (complaint must state more than conclusory allegations)
- Michau v. Charleston County, 434 F.3d 725 (district court dismissal standards under §1915)
- Schweiker v. Chilicky, 487 U.S. 412 (no money damages for wrongfully denied Social Security benefits)
- DeBauche v. Trani, 191 F.3d 499 (private actors liable under §1983 only when functioning as state actors)
- Sattler v. Johnson, 857 F.2d 224 (no private right to compel criminal prosecution)
- Biggs v. Meadows, 66 F.3d 56 (determining official vs. individual capacity when not specified)