Mumin v. Holder, Civil Action No. 2017-0726

Plaintiff Dukhan Mumin, a Nebraska state prisoner, filed a pro se complaint asserting a qui tam claim under the False Claims Act (FCA) against the Nebraska Department of Health and Human Services (NDHHS) for allegedly diverting federal funds.
Plaintiff alleges he submitted a qui tam complaint to DOJ in 2015 and that HHS informed him no investigation would be conducted.
He contends defendants conspired to deprive him of his right to recover at least 15% of fines and penalties and seeks at least 15% of fines/penalties from 1987 to present plus punitive damages.
The court screened the pro se complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and considered Twombly/Iqbal pleading standards.
The court concluded pro se relators cannot pursue qui tam actions on behalf of the United States and that decisions whether to investigate or prosecute are committed to prosecutorial discretion and generally not judicially reviewable.
The court granted IFP and dismissed the action for failure to state a claim; a separate dismissal order was entered.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a pro se relator may pursue a qui tam FCA action on behalf of the United States	Mumin claims entitlement to pursue qui tam relief and recover a relator's share (at least 15%)	The United States (and courts) require adequate legal representation for the Government; pro se litigants may not represent the U.S. in qui tam suits	Pro se plaintiffs may not bring qui tam actions for the United States; dismissal for failure to state a claim
Whether the court may review HHS/DOJ decision not to investigate or prosecute alleged FCA violations	Mumin challenges HHS/DOJ decision not to pursue his complaint and seeks relief based on that inaction	Executive branch has absolute/discretionary authority over investigation and prosecution decisions, generally immune from judicial review	Decisions to investigate/prosecute are discretionary and not subject to judicial review; no judicial remedy available

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (pleading must state a plausible claim for relief)
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (Twombly pleading standard for plausibility)
Walker v. Nationstar Mortg. LLC, 142 F. Supp. 3d 63 (D.D.C. 2015) (pro se relators cannot pursue FCA qui tam actions on behalf of the United States)
U.S. ex rel. Fisher v. Network Software Assocs., 377 F. Supp. 2d 195 (D.D.C. 2005) (United States is the real party in interest in qui tam suits; need for adequate legal representation)
Rockefeller v. Westinghouse Elec. Co., 274 F. Supp. 2d 10 (D.D.C. 2003) (discussing need for legal representation when U.S. is a real party in interest)
Shoshone-Bannock Tribes v. Reno, 56 F.3d 1476 (D.C. Cir. 1995) (agency decisions to prosecute/investigate are discretionary and generally not subject to judicial review)
Block v. SEC, 50 F.3d 1078 (D.C. Cir. 1995) (recognizing prosecutorial/enforcement discretion and limited judicial review)