947 F.3d 240
4th Cir.2020Background
- Appellant Edward Wojcicki filed a pro se qui tam complaint under the False Claims Act (FCA) alleging SCANA and SCE&G sought false rate increases under South Carolina law to fund nuclear units, purportedly affecting the United States’ interests.
- He sought to proceed "on behalf of the United States," filed under seal, and was warned by the magistrate judge to (1) retain counsel and (2) serve summonses on the U.S. Attorney General and local U.S. Attorney; he failed to retain counsel.
- The magistrate judge recommended unsealing and dismissal; the district court ultimately dismissed the action without prejudice because a pro se relator cannot represent the Government in a qui tam action.
- Appellant’s motions for appointment of counsel and multiple motions for reconsideration were denied; he appealed the dismissal and the denial of reconsideration.
- The Fourth Circuit affirmed, holding that a relator cannot litigate a qui tam FCA suit pro se because the relator’s interest is inextricably bound with the Government’s and a non-attorney cannot represent the Government’s interests.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a relator may prosecute an FCA qui tam action pro se | Wojcicki: FCA does not expressly forbid pro se relators; requiring counsel is not authorized by the statute | Appellees: Non-attorney may not represent the Government; relator cannot bind Government pro se; courts require counsel | A relator may not proceed pro se in an FCA qui tam action; dismissal affirmed |
| Whether denial of appointment of counsel was an abuse of discretion | Wojcicki: Appointment required to avoid manifest injustice | Appellees: No right to counsel in civil cases; no exceptional circumstances shown | Denial proper; district court did not abuse discretion |
| Whether denial of motion for reconsideration was an abuse of discretion | Wojcicki: Reconsideration needed to prevent manifest injustice | Appellees: Dismissal was legally correct, so reconsideration denial proper | Denial affirmed; no intervening law or new evidence shown |
| Effect of pro se status on government interests and res judicata | Wojcicki: Proceeding pro se vindicates his partially assigned interest | Appellees: Allowing pro se relator risks binding the United States and precluding other relators | Court: Because government is real party in interest, pro se relators cannot represent it; protecting government interests justifies requiring counsel |
Key Cases Cited
- Vermont Agency of Nat. Res. v. United States ex rel. Stevens, 529 U.S. 765 (2000) (characterizes qui tam relator’s role as a partial assignment of the Government’s claim)
- Winkelman ex rel. Winkelman v. Parma City Sch. Dist., 550 U.S. 516 (2007) (recognizes right of parties to proceed pro se for their own interests)
- Myers v. Loudoun Cty. Pub. Sch., 418 F.3d 395 (4th Cir. 2005) (non-attorney generally may not litigate others’ claims; protects rights of those before the court)
- Stoner v. Santa Clara Cty. Office of Educ., 502 F.3d 1116 (9th Cir. 2007) (qui tam relator’s actions can bind the United States; relator may not proceed pro se)
- Mergent Servs. v. Flaherty, 540 F.3d 89 (2d Cir. 2008) (relators lack a sufficient personal interest to proceed pro se in FCA qui tam actions)
- Georgakis v. Ill. State Univ., 722 F.3d 1075 (7th Cir. 2013) (relator must be an attorney or be represented by one to maintain a qui tam action)
- United States ex rel. Carter v. Halliburton Co., 866 F.3d 199 (4th Cir. 2017) (discusses standards for review and principles relevant to FCA qui tam procedure)
- Zinkand v. Brown, 478 F.3d 634 (4th Cir. 2007) (identifies proper grounds for Rule 59(e) reconsideration)