Martin v. United States Department of Agriculture
Filing
18
ORDER granting United States' 9 Motion to Dismiss; denying 5 Motion for Relief Including Cease and Desist Order and denying 8 Motion to Deny Objection of US Attorney's Office to Plaintiff's Relief; finding as moot the United States' 6 Motion for clairification. This case is closed. Signed by Chief Judge J. Randal Hall on 01/10/2019. (jlh)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
AUGUSTA DIVISION
SUSAN G. MARTIN,
Plaintiff,
*
*
*
V.
CV 118-009
*
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
AGRICULTURE,
*
*
*
Defendant.
*
ORDER
Before the Court is the United States' motion to dismiss.
(Doc. 9.)
The United States filed a statement of interest in this
qui tain action and represents the interests of the Government, but
it does not bring this motion on behalf of Defendant United States
Department of Agriculture.
For the reasons set forth below, the
Court GRANTS the Government's motion to dismiss.
I.
Susan G. Martin
BACKGROUND
C'Relator"), proceeding pro se, filed this
action seeking to remedy alleged abuses by Defendant United States
Department of Agriculture ("USDA") and its subdivision the United
States Forest Service C'USFS") in their maintenance and regulation
of federal land.
(Compl., Doc. 1, at 6.)
Relator alleges the
USDA and the USFS do not have regulatory authority to manage trails
on federal land or to limit recreational mining activities in
certain waterways.
(Id.)
Relator's subsequent filings clarified that she was bringing
a qui tarn action against the USDA under the False Claims Act, 31
U.S.C. § 3729 et seq.
(See Doc. 5, at 1-2
Doc. 8, at 3-4.)
At
bottom, Relator contends the USDA filed fraudulent claims to the
Government
authority.
by
taking
actions
that
(See Doc. 5, at 2-5.)
exceeded
its
regulatory
She focuses on three acts.
First, USDA employees allegedly misdirected funds intended to
maintain forest roads by installing gates to limit motor vehicle
access to certain parts of those roads.
2-3.)
(Compl., at 6; Doc. 5, at
Second, USDA employees failed to enforce commercial logging
permits and bulldozed dirt berms near forest roads, which allowed
erosion
of
mo\intainsides
on
federal
land.
(Doc.
5,
at
3-4.)
Finally, the USDA exceeded its authority by limiting recreational
mining activities in certain streams within the Tellico Ranger
District in Tennessee.
(Compl., at 2, 5, Ex. B.)
Because of these
alleged abuses, Relator seeks an order from the Court stripping
the USDA of all regulatory authority over recreational activities
on federal lands.
(Id. at 6.)
^ Relator refers to Doc. 5 as "Plaintiff's Update of Qui Tarn Complaint and
Motion for Relief Including Cease and Desist Order." The Court will treat the
additional allegations made in this filing as part of the Complaint, consistent
with its policy of liberally construing pro se pleadings.
See Erickson v.
Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007).
On April 19, 2018, the United States filed a statement of
interest pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 517.2
Doc. 6.)
action
on
(statement of Interest,
Shortly thereafter, it filed a motion to dismiss this
behalf
interest.3
of
the
United
States
as
the
real
party
in
(United States' Mot. to Dismiss, Doc. 9, at 1 n.3.)
The Government's motion argues there is no case or controversy as
required
by
Article
III
of
the
Constitution.
Further,
the
Government contends that the USDA cannot be sued under the False
Claims Act because Congress has not waived sovereign immunity for
federal agencies.
II.
The False Claims
Act
DISCUSSION
C'FCA") allows
the United States
to
recover damages from those who knowingly make false claims for
payment upon the United States.
31 U.S.C. § 3729(a). To encourage
reporting, any person may commence a civil action — more commonly
known as a qui tarn action — on behalf of the United States for
violation of the FCA.
Id. § 3730(b).
These persons or ''relators"
are guaranteed a portion of the recovery of a successful action,
31 U.S.C. § 3730(d), even though the United States is the real
2 The statute allows "any officer of the Department of Justice . . . to attend
to the interests of the United States in a suit pending in a court of the United
States."
2 The Government clarified that it was not filing the motion to dismiss on
behalf of the USDA.
party in interest.
Timson v. Sampson, 518 F.3d 870, 873 (11th
Cir. 2008).
The FCA requires a relator to bring the action in the name of
the Government and file
§ 3730(b)(2).
the
complaint in camera.
31 U.S.C.
The complaint cannot be served on the defendant
until the court orders.
Id.
The relator must also serve the
Government with a copy of the complaint and a written disclosure
of substantially all material evidence regarding the false claims.
Id.
That service
triggers
a sixty-day period in
which
the
Government may elect to intervene or decline to take over the
action.
to
Id. § 3730(b)(4).
dismiss
relator.
the
action
The Government also retains the power
notwithstanding
Id. § 3730(c)(2).
the
objections
of
the
Further, the Government need not
intervene before filing a motion to dismiss.
Ridenour v. Kaiser-
Hill Co., LLC, 397 F.3d 925, 933 (10th Cir. 2005); see also Swift
V. United States, 318 F.3d 250, 251 (D.C. Cir. 2003) (^^[Section]
3730(b)(2) makes intervention necessary only if the government
wishes to 'proceed with the action.
' Ending the case by dismissing
it is not proceeding with the action.").
At the outset, the Court notes that Relator has not complied
with the procedural requirements to bring a qui tain action under
the FCA.
Relator did not bring the action in the name of the
Government, did not file the complaint in camera or under seal,
and has not, to the Court's knowledge, served a written disclosure
of all material evidence and information regarding the claims on
the Government.
See 31 U.S.C. § 3730(b).
Relator's failure to
serve a written disclosure of all material evidence means
sixty-day
period
triggered.
for
the
Government
Id. § 3730(b)(2).
to
intervene
was
the
never
At any rate, whether or not the
Government choose to intervene is irrelevant because it need not
make that decision in order to seek dismissal.
Swift, 318 F.3d at
251.
Even if Relator complied with all FCA procedures, her claim
does not present a justiciable case or controversy as required by
Article III of the Constitution.
In every case there must be '^a
real, substantial controversy between parties having adverse legal
interests."
Babbitt v. United Farm Workers Nat'l Union, 442 U.S.
289, 298 (1979).
A qui tain action against a federal agency does
not present a justiciable case or controversy because it is, in
essence, a suit by the United States against the United States.
See Juliano v. Fed. Asset Disposition Ass'n, 736 F. Supp. 348,
351-53 (D.D.C. 1990), aff'd, 959 F.2d 1101 (B.C. Cir. 1992).
And
it is the longstanding practice of federal courts to ''not engage
in the academic pastime of rendering judgments in favor of persons
against themselves."
United States v. I.C.C., 337 U.S. 426, 430
(1949) (noting "courts must look behind the names that symbolize
the parties to determine whether a justiciable case or controversy
is presented").
Looking behind the curtain here shows Relator's case is a
suit by the United States against the United States.
The United
States is the real party in interest in a gui tarn action under the
FCA and Relator's allegations are levied against the USDA, a
federal agency.'^
Any recovery awarded would simply empty the
Government's right pocket to fill its left.
of
funds
within
the
federal
Such a redistribution
government
justiciable case or controversy.
does
not
create
a
See Juliano, 736 F. Supp. at
351-53.
Furthermore,
Relator
cannot maintain
this
under the FCA because she is proceeding pro se.
gui
tarn action
Unrepresented
individuals are not authorized to bring an action in federal court
on behalf of others.
See 28 U.S.C. § 1654.
Because the United
States is the real party in interest in a gui tarn action under the
FCA,
a
relator
may
Government pro se.
not
litigate
the
case
on
behalf
of
the
Timson, 518 F.3d at 874; see also Stoner v.
Santa Clara Cnty. Off, of Educ., 502 F.3d 1116, 1126 {9th Cir.
2007).
Finally, the Court finds that it is unnecessary to hold a
hearing in this case before granting the Government's motion to
^ A suit against a federal agency is deemed a suit against the United States
"if the judgment sought would expend itself on the public treasury or domain,
or interfere with public administration, . . . or if the effect of the judgment
would be to restrain the Government from acting, or to compel it to act." Dugan
V. Rank, 372 U.S. 609, 620 (1963) (internal citation omitted); see also Panola
Land Buyers Ass'n v. Shuman, 762 F.2d 1550, 1555 (11th Cir. 1985).
dismiss.
Under the FCA, ''[t]he Government may dismiss the action
notwithstanding the objections of the person initiating the action
if the person has been notified by the Government of the filing of
the
motion
opportunity
and
for
§ 3730(c)(2)(A).
the
court
a
has
hearing
provided
on
Objections
the
filed
by
the
person
motion."
the
with
31
relator
an
U.S.C.
''may
be
accompanied by a petition for an evidentiary hearing on those
objections."
S. Rep. No. 99-345, at 26 (1986) (emphasis added).
Congress did not intend, however, for hearings to be granted as a
matter of right.
Id.
The relator must show a '^substantial and
particularized need" for a hearing, for example, where the relator
presents a colorable claim that the dismissal is unreasonable in
light of existing evidence.
Id.; see also United States v.
Everglades Coll., Inc., 855 F.3d 1279, 1289-90 (11th Cir. 2017);
Ridenour, 397 F.3d at 935 (10th Cir. 2005).
In this case, Relator has not explicitly requested a hearing
on
the
hearing
Government's
would
be
motion
to
inappropriate
dismiss.
because
Nevertheless,
Relator
substantial and particularized need for one.
such
a
cannot show
a
She did not produce
a written disclosure of material evidence to the Government, and
Relator's
Complaint fails
to
allege
any instance
submitting a false claim to the Government.
claims
the USDA and
the USFS acted beyond
of
a
person
Instead, Relator
their
authority by
regulating forest roads and recreational mining activities.
A FCA
violation is not the proper avenue to challenge such actions.
See
Juliano, 736 F. Supp. at 352 (''The 'typical' claim brought under
the False Claims Act appears to involve the private contractor —
the defense contractor, the construction contractor, the medical
service provider — that provides services to the federal government
or its agencies and subsequently submits false or fraudulent claims
which are paid out of the federal, treasury.").
Accordingly, there
is insufficient existing evidence to support a plausible claim
that the FCA was violated.^
III«
CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, the Court finds Article Ill's case or
controversy requirement is not satisfied in this case.
States' motion to dismiss (Doc. 9) is GRANTED.
The United
Further, Relator's
Motion for Relief Including Cease and Desist Order (Doc. 5) and
Motion to Deny Objection of U.S. Attorney's Office to Plaintiff's
Relief (Doc. 8) are DENIED.
for
clarification (Doc.
Finally, the United States' motion
6) is DENIED AS MOOT.
The
Clerk is
DIRECTED to TERMINATE all pending motions and deadlines and CLOSE
this case.
5 Having found the case or controversy requirement is not satisfied, the Court
need not address the Government's sovereign immunity argument.
8
ORDER ENTERED at Augusta, Georgia, this
day of January,
2019.
J. RANDMTJiALL, CHIEF JUDGE
UNITED States district court
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?