James Brooks v. Jeffrey Ormsby, et al

Filing

PUBLISHED OPINION FILED. [17-50080 Affirmed ] Judge: JLW , Judge: JLD , Judge: LHS Mandate pull date is 09/11/2017 [17-50080]

Case: 17-50080

Document: 00514081812

Page: 1

Date Filed: 07/20/2017

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
United States Court of Appeals
No. 17-50080
Summary Calendar

Fif h Circuit

FILED
July 20, 2017
Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, EX REL, JAMES BROOKS,
Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

JEFFERY ORMSBY; 30 JOHN/JANE DOES,
Defendants-Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
Before WIENER, DENNIS, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.
WIENER, Circuit Judge.
Plaintiff-Appellant, James Brooks, a non-lawyer proceeding pro se, filed
this False Claims Act suit against Defendants-Appellees, in his capacity of
relator for the United States. The United States declined to intervene as a
“party,” leaving it as “a real party in interest.”
The district court dismissed this action without prejudice after giving
Brooks, a federal prisoner, time to obtain representation by a duly licensed and
qualified attorney to prosecute this case. The court did so because, even though
Brooks could represent himself pro se, he could not do so for the benefit of the
United States, a non-party for whom he is merely the relator.
Brooks asserts on appeal, as he did in the district court, that he is
entitled to bring this qui tam action as relator of the United States and to do

Case: 17-50080

Document: 00514081812

Page: 2

Date Filed: 07/20/2017

No. 17-50080
so pro se, just as he could any other action on his own behalf. Brooks relies
primarily on U.S. ex rel, Eisenstein v. New York, 556 U.S. 298 (2009).
We have carefully considered the positions of the parties as set forth in
their appellate briefs and their record excerpts, including the district court’s
orders of October 6 and November 14, 2016, and January 6, 2017, and we are
convinced beyond cavil that the district court got it right. As this is a matter
of first impression in this court, we echo the holding of the district court that,
regardless of the right of anyone to represent himself pro se, he is not
representing himself when he brings an action solely as relator for another
non-intervening party, including the United States, and therefore cannot do so
pro se. The January 6, 2017 Order of the district court dismissing this action
for failure properly to prosecute it and to comply with the orders of that court
− principally its order to obtain representation by a licensed attorney
authorized to represent the United States as a true party in interest in this
lawsuit − is, in all respects,
AFFIRMED.

2