Pincus Hueter v. Kruse, Civil Action No. 2020-3686

Pro se plaintiff Steven J. Pincus Hueter filed suit naming over 70 defendants, mainly challenging government COVID-19 actions; he seeks leave to file a Fourth Amended Complaint adding claims and defendants.
The Court reviews only claims raised for the first time in the proposed Fourth Amended Complaint and applies Rule 15(a)(2) balancing leave to amend against futility.
New claims include alleged violations of 18 U.S.C. §§ 241–42 (conspiracy/deprivation of rights), requests for declaratory relief against American Samoa judges, False Claims Act (FCA) qui tam allegations, a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 351 against the Chief Justice of American Samoa, and alleged misuse of CARES Act funds.
The Court held each newly asserted theory would fail as a matter of law (no private right of action, immunity, procedural limits, or lack of standing), so amendment would be futile.
The Court denied leave to file the Fourth Amended Complaint and gave the defendants a deadline to respond to the operative Third Amended Complaint.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Private right under 18 U.S.C. §§ 241–242	Hueter asserts criminal statutes support civil claims for conspiracy/deprivation of rights	Criminal statutes do not create private civil causes of action	Denied — no private right of action under §§ 241–242
Declaratory relief against American Samoa judges	Seeks declaratory relief for constitutional violations arising in American Samoa proceedings	Judicial defendants invoke judicial immunity and that relief is via appeal	Denied — judicial immunity bars such claims; appeal is proper remedy
False Claims Act (qui tam) by pro se relator	Alleges FCA violations and seeks to proceed on qui tam theories	Defendants contend a pro se plaintiff cannot bring qui tam actions on behalf of the United States	Denied — pro se litigant cannot pursue qui tam FCA claims
Claim under 28 U.S.C. § 351 against Chief Justice Kruse	Hueter cites § 351 to challenge judicial conduct	§ 351 applies to federal judges/process and provides a complaint procedure, not a private cause of action	Denied — § 351 does not create a private right for this claim and does not apply to state/territorial judges
Standing to sue over alleged CARES Act misuse	Alleged misuse of CARES funds harmed Hueter	Defendants argue the harms are generalized public grievances, not concrete individualized injury	Denied — lacks Article III standing; injuries are generalized grievances

McCray v. Holder, [citation="391 F. App'x 887"] (D.C. Cir.) (no private right of action under 18 U.S.C. §§ 241–242)
Jenkins v. Kerry, 928 F. Supp. 2d 122 (D.D.C. 2013) (judicial immunity bars claims based on judicial acts; appeal is proper remedy)
U.S. ex rel. Bledsoe v. Cmty. Health Sys., Inc., 342 F.3d 634 (6th Cir. 2003) (FCA describes qui tam relator framework)
U.S. ex rel. Batiste v. SLM Corp., 659 F.3d 1204 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (qui tam procedure and government as real party in interest)
Walker v. Nationstar Mortg. LLC, 142 F. Supp. 3d 63 (D.D.C. 2015) (pro se litigants may not pursue qui tam FCA actions)
Jones v. Jindal, [citation="409 F. App'x 356"] (D.C. Cir.) (affirming dismissal of pro se qui tam complaint)
Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) (Article III standing requires concrete, particularized injury)
Hollingsworth v. Perry, 570 U.S. 693 (2013) (generalized grievances do not confer standing)
Schlesinger v. Reservists Comm. to Stop the War, 418 U.S. 208 (1974) (public-interest grievances insufficient for standing)
Barr v. Clinton, 370 F.3d 1196 (D.C. Cir. 2004) (civil conspiracy claims require factual allegations of agreement)