Cook v. Department of Human Services et al

Filing 4

ORDER GRANTING IFP AND DISMISSING CASE Signed by District Judge Victoria A. Roberts. (CPin)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
MARY LENISE COOK,
Plaintiff,

CASE NUMBER: 14-12516
HONORABLE VICTORIA A. ROBERTS

v.
DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES,
et al.,
Defendants.
/

ORDER
On June 26, 2014, Plaintiff filed a pro se complaint against “Department of
Human Services”; “Grandriver Warren District”; and “Hamtrack Jos Campu District.”
Plaintiff also filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis.
The Court GRANTS the application to proceed in forma pauperis. This action is
DISMISSED for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and for failing to state a claim on
which relief may be granted under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
The complaint is comprised of several disconnected allegations, but Plaintiff does
allege that Defendants have “been committing fraud since 1/1/2011 - 7/1/2011.” The
alleged fraud appears to be based on a document Plaintiff received – which is titled
“Eligibility Summary” – stating that Plaintiff was paid monthly “benefits” from January to
July 2011; Plaintiff attaches a printout of the Eligibility Summary to the complaint.
Plaintiff says she did not receive “that income” from Defendants. Plaintiff also says she
“kept [her] grandson for 7 mo[nth]s, but she does not specify the time period.
Plaintiff fails to allege any basis for federal subject matter jurisdiction. However,

she does summarily cite to section 3729 of the False Claims Act (FCA), 31 U.S.C. §
3729, et seq. Section 3729 of the FCA provides that “any person who—
(A) knowingly presents, or causes to be presented, a false or fraudulent
claim for payment or approval;
(B) knowingly makes, uses, or causes to be made or used, a false record
or statement material to a false or fraudulent claim;
(C) conspires to commit a violation of subparagraph (A), (B), (D), (E), (F),
or (G);
(D) has possession, custody, or control of property or money used, or to
be used, by the Government and knowingly delivers, or causes to be
delivered, less than all of that money or property;
(E) is authorized to make or deliver a document certifying receipt of
property used, or to be used, by the Government and, intending to defraud
the Government, makes or delivers the receipt without completely knowing
that the information on the receipt is true;
(F) knowingly buys, or receives as a pledge of an obligation or debt, public
property from an officer or employee of the Government, or a member of
the Armed Forces, who lawfully may not sell or pledge property; or
(G) knowingly makes, uses, or causes to be made or used, a false record
or statement material to an obligation to pay or transmit money or property
to the Government, or knowingly conceals or knowingly and improperly
avoids or decreases an obligation to pay or transmit money or property to
the Government,
is liable to the United States Government for a civil penalty of not less than
$5,000 and not more than $10,000 ... plus 3 times the amount of damages which
the Government sustains because of the act of that person.”
See 31 U.S.C. § 3729(a)(1). In general terms, the FCA defines “claim” as a demand for
money or property made directly to the federal government.
The FCA allows an individual to bring a civil action for a violation of § 3729. See
31 U.S.C. § 3730(b)(1). However, the “action shall be brought in the name of the
Government”; the complaint must be filed under seal, or “in camera”; and “[a] copy of

2

the complaint and written disclosure of substantially all material evidence and
information the person possesses shall be served on the Government pursuant to Rule
4(d)(4).” See 31 U.S.C. § 3730(b)(1)-(2).
Plaintiff fails to comply with any of these requirements. The action was filed in
her name, it was not filed under seal, and she fails to allege that she served the
government with the required materials. Furthermore, Plaintiff fails to state that the
alleged fraud involved any false claim made to the federal government. The
Department of Human Services and the other defendants are not federal agencies or
any other subpart of the federal government. The Department of Human Services is a
state agency; the other defendants appear to be part of local municipalities.
Plaintiff fails to properly bring a private action under the FCA. Moreover,
notwithstanding the procedural deficiencies, the complaint contains insufficient factual
allegations to state a claim for relief on which relief may be granted under the FCA.
Plaintiff alleges no other basis for federal court jurisdiction, no claims, and no
requests for relief. Accordingly, the complaint fails to state a claim on which relief may
be granted.
The Court must dismiss any action filed in forma pauperis that is factually
frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks
monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from suit. See 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2)(B).
Because Plaintiff fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted and does
not allege subject matter jurisdiction, the complaint is deficient.
Plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED. Plaintiff’s

3

Complaint is DISMISSED.
IT IS ORDERED.

S/Victoria A. Roberts
Victoria A. Roberts
United States District Judge
Dated: July 7, 2014
The undersigned certifies that a copy of this
document was served on the attorneys of
record and Mary Lenise Cook by electronic
means or U.S. Mail on July 7, 2014.
S/Carol A. Pinegar
Deputy Clerk

4