Armstead v. Cabinet for Health and Human Services et al
Filing
5
MEMORANDUM AND OPINION by Chief Judge Joseph H. McKinley, Jr. on 3/13/2017: This action will be dismissed by separate order. cc: Plaintiff (pro se), defendants (JBM)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
OWENSBORO DIVISION
GLENN AARON ARMSTEAD
v.
PLAINTIFF
CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:16-CV-150-JHM
CABINET FOR HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVS. et al.
DEFENDANTS
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Pro se Plaintiff Glenn Aaron Armstead filed the instant action. Because Plaintiff is
proceeding in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915, the Court must undertake a preliminary
review of the complaint. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e); McGore v. Wrigglesworth, 114 F.3d 601 (6th
Cir. 1997), overruled on other grounds by Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199 (2007). For the following
reasons, the action will be dismissed.
I. SUMMARY OF CLAIMS
Plaintiff brings this action against the Kentucky Cabinet for Health and Human Services,
D. Brent Irvin at Legal Services, and the Social Security Administration. He states that the basis
for this Court’s jurisdiction is the False Claims Act, “31 U.S. Code 3729-3733.” The complaint
states that the amount in controversy is “72 months of health care and $730 benefit involved.”
He alleges: “Cabinet refused settlement outside of court privacy issue. Did not live in
Commonwealth[.] documents -- dates -- case # -- false all documents. Statements from CHFS
saying SSA sent information out. I received it from CHFS. Dates -- my government name [--]
all documents false.” The complaint continues:
Documents date back 6 years with my government name and health information.
I lived in Indiana on 90 percent of the dates, not Kentucky. Information was
mailed on form PA-11 from Cabinet for Health, Cabinet said information came
from SSA but the claim has the truth 6 years of documents dates case # 11534348
CHFS. I have the documents with all dates from 4/10 – 4/16. Documents say
approved 72 times. Lived in Indiana on these dates. My Indiana records show
facts.
As relief, Plaintiff asks for “tort relief.”
II. ANALYSIS
Because Plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis, this Court must review the instant
action. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2); McGore v. Wrigglesworth, 114 F.3d at 608. Upon review,
this Court must dismiss a case at any time if the Court determines that the action is “frivolous or
malicious,” fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from
a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). A claim is legally
frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S.
319, 325 (1989). The Court may, therefore, dismiss a claim as frivolous where it is based on an
indisputably meritless legal theory or where the factual contentions are clearly baseless. Id. at
327.
When determining whether a plaintiff has stated a claim upon which relief can be
granted, the Court must construe the complaint in a light most favorable to the plaintiff and
accept all of the factual allegations as true. Prater v. City of Burnside, Ky., 289 F.3d 417, 424
(6th Cir. 2002). A complaint, or portion thereof, should be dismissed for failure to state a claim
upon which relief may be granted “only if it appears beyond a doubt that the plaintiff can prove
no set of facts in support of his claim that would entitle him to relief.” Brown v. Bargery, 207
F.3d 863, 867 (6th Cir. 2000). While a reviewing court must liberally construe pro se pleadings,
Boag v. MacDougall, 454 U.S. 364, 365 (1982) (per curiam), to avoid dismissal, a complaint
must include “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp.
v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007).
2
The False Claims Act (FCA) is found at 31 U.S.C. § 3729, et seq. It “is an anti-fraud
statute that prohibits the knowing submission of false or fraudulent claims to the federal
government.” United States ex rel. Bledsoe v. Cmty. Health Sys., Inc., 342 F.3d 634, 640 (6th
Cir. 2003). Under the FCA, a private individual, known as a relator, may bring suit alleging
FCA violations on behalf of the government; such an action is known as a qui tam action. Id.;
United States v. Health Possibilities, P.S.C., 207 F.3d 335, 342 n.5 (6th Cir. 2000) (noting that
“the United States is the real-party-in-interest in FCA litigation”).
However, qui tam actions cannot be brought by a pro se relator. Because “a qui tam
relator . . . sues on behalf of the government and not himself[, h]e therefore must comply with
the general rule prohibiting nonlawyers from representing other litigants.” United States ex rel.
Szymczak v. Covenant Healthcare Sys., Inc., 207 F. App’x 731, 732 (7th Cir. 2006) (citation
omitted); see also Jones v. Jindal, 409 F. App’x 356 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (per curiam); United States
ex rel. Mergent Servs. v. Flaherty, 540 F.3d 89, 92-94 (2nd Cir. 2008); Timson v. Sampson, 518
F.3d 870, 873-74 (11th Cir. 2008); Rogers v. Sacramento Cty., 293 F. App’x 466, 467 (9th Cir.
2008); United States ex rel. Brooks v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 237 F. App’x 802, 803 (4th Cir.
2007) (per curiam); Brantley v. Title First Titling Agency, No. 1:12-cv-608, 2012 WL 6725592,
at *3 (S.D. Ohio Sept. 27, 2012); Carter v. Washtenaw Cty., No. 09-14994, 2010 WL 3222042,
at *1 (E.D. Mich. Aug. 13, 2010).
Accordingly, because Plaintiff is proceeding pro se in this action, he is prohibited from
bringing an FCA claim, and the complaint will be dismissed.
3
III. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, by separate Order, this action will be dismissed.
Date:
March 13, 2017
cc:
Plaintiff, pro se
Defendants
4414.009
4
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?