Hillis v. Louisiana State Bar Association
Civil Action No. 2023-2016
| D.D.C. | Jul 31, 2023Background
- Plaintiffs Ronald Hillis and Calvin Griffin, pro se Louisiana inmates, filed a civil complaint against the Oregon and Louisiana State Bar associations alleging a broad conspiracy/"organized crime" for failing to advise state prisoners of a federal removal right.
- Hillis filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP); Griffin did not file IFP paperwork or pay the filing fee, so Griffin cannot proceed as a party.
- Plaintiffs attempted to pursue the suit as a qui tam action and as a class action on behalf of "thousands of state prisoners," seeking extensive records and listings related to trial attorneys, judges, and waiver colloquies.
- The court concluded that pro se litigants cannot bring qui tam suits on behalf of the United States and cannot represent a class or other prisoners without counsel.
- The court also found venue in the District of Columbia improper because defendants and the relevant events are centered in Oregon and Louisiana.
- The action was dismissed without prejudice under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) for failure to state a claim and on the stated procedural grounds.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a pro se relator may bring a qui tam action under the FCA | Plaintiffs filed as qui tam relators alleging fraud/organized crime by bar associations | Qui tam actions are prosecuted in the name of the United States and a pro se litigant cannot represent the Government | Pro se litigants may not bring qui tam actions; dismissal affirmed on that ground |
| Whether a pro se plaintiff may pursue a class action | Plaintiffs sought to represent "thousands" of prisoners as a class | A pro se litigant cannot represent other individuals or a class in federal court | Pro se plaintiffs cannot represent a class; class claims not permitted without counsel |
| Whether venue in D.C. is proper | Plaintiffs filed in the District of Columbia | Defendants reside in Oregon and Louisiana and the alleged events did not occur in D.C. | D.C. is an improper venue under 28 U.S.C. § 1391; case not properly filed here |
| Whether Griffin may proceed without filing IFP or paying the fee | Plaintiffs jointly filed the complaint | Griffin did not file IFP paperwork nor pay the filing fee; thus cannot be a party | Griffin cannot proceed as a party without IFP or fee; case dismissed without prejudice |
Key Cases Cited
- United States ex rel. Bledsoe v. Community Health Sys., Inc., 342 F.3d 634 (6th Cir. 2003) (describing FCA qui tam framework)
- U.S. ex rel. Batiste v. SLM Corp., 659 F.3d 1204 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (relator may bring qui tam action but Government is real party in interest)
- Georgiades v. Martin–Trigona, 729 F.2d 831 (D.C. Cir. 1984) (pro se litigant cannot act as counsel for others)
- Oxendine v. Williams, 509 F.2d 1405 (4th Cir. 1975) (a class member cannot represent the class without counsel)
- U.S. ex rel. Rockefeller v. Westinghouse Elec. Co., 274 F. Supp. 2d 10 (D.D.C. 2003) (a class member cannot represent the class in a qui tam action without counsel)