610 F. App'x 155
3rd Cir.2015Background
- Gunn filed a January 2013 pro se qui tam action under the FCA on behalf of the United States.
- Gunn was granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis and his complaint was sealed.
- Gunn alleged fraud against Nikole Shelton and Credit Suisse Group AG via counterfeit securitization documents.
- District Court screened under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) and dismissed for lack of standing to represent the United States.
- Court warned Gunn to obtain counsel to file an amended complaint and to cure the defects.
- This Court affirmed the dismissal, holding pro se relators may not pursue qui tam actions on behalf of the Government.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Can a pro se relator sue for the United States? | Gunn asserts he may represent the U.S. | Only the United States or counsel may sue; Gunn cannot. | Pro se relator cannot pursue qui tam for the Government. |
| Must the district court appoint counsel for a pro se relator seeking to amend? | Gunn argues appointment is needed to proceed. | No automatic appointment obligation. | Court did not err in not sua sponte appointing counsel. |
| Was the dismissal proper despite liberal construction? | Gunn contends liberal pleading should save the action. | Dismissal grounded on pro se status and lack of representational authority. | Dismissal affirmed based on non-representational capacity, not pleading liberalization. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States ex rel. Mergent Servs. v. Flaherty, 540 F.3d 89 (2d Cir. 2008) (private citizen cannot sue for government in qui tam)
- Timson v. Sampson, 518 F.3d 870 (11th Cir. 2008) (pro se qui tam restrictions apply)
- Stoner v. Santa Clara Cnty. Office of Educ., 502 F.3d 1116 (9th Cir. 2007) (pro se cannot represent others)
- United States ex rel. Lu v. Ou, 368 F.3d 773 (7th Cir. 2004) (cited for representational limitations in qui tam)
- United States v. Onan, 190 F.2d 1 (8th Cir. 1951) (early authority on standing of relators)
- Jones v. Jindal, 409 F. App’x 356 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (unpublished disposition on qui tam standing)
- United States ex rel. Brooks v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 237 F. App’x 802 (4th Cir. 2007) (pro se limitations in qui tam context)
- United States ex rel. Eisenstein v. City of New York, 556 U.S. 928 (2009) (recognizes real party in interest considerations)
- Allah v. Seiverling, 229 F.3d 220 (3d Cir. 2000) (jurisdictional review of dismissal under 1915e)