United States of America et al v. Lower Florence County Hospital District et al

Filing 49

ORDER denying 41 Motion Requesting the right to all public and nonpublic documents pertaining in this case; finding as moot 41 Motion for Extension of Time. Relator is given twenty-one (21) days from the date of this Order to procure counsel, as she cannot proceed pro se in a qui tam action. Counsel shall file a Notice of Appearance within that time period. Signed by Magistrate Judge Thomas E Rogers, III on 12/10/2018.(dsto, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
United States of America,
Ex rel. Erica Poston

) C/A: 4:17-cv-00018-RBH-TER
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
ORDER
vs.
)
)
Lower Florence County Hospital District, d/b/a Lake )
City Community Hospital, and Global Healthcare and )
Rehab, Inc.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
___________________________________________
This matter is before the court on Relator Poston’s request for “all public and nonpublic
documents” in this action and for an extension of time to serve the complaint. (ECF No. 41). The
United States has opposed Relator’s request and filed a response. (ECF No. 46). Relator’s request
does not address any particular documents and is not directed to any particular party or others. Thus,
even if this was a proper motion directed to a proper party or other, the undersigned would have to
speculate as to what documents she seeks, who is in possession of any such documents, and based
on what has been presented, whether any such documents may be subject to protection, in whole or
in part. Therefore, Relator’s request is denied. (ECF No. 46).
Additionally, the United States declined to intervene in this case and filed a notice of such
on July 5, 2018. (ECF No. 30). The court gave Relator 45 days on August 27, 2018 to obtain new
counsel. (ECF No. 36). Neither the general pro se grant, 28 U.S.C. § 1654, nor the FCA itself
authorizes pro se prosecution of qui tam claims.1 Qui tam relators are not entitled to proceed pro
se. U.S. ex re. Brooks v. Lockheed Martin, Corp., 237 Fed. Appx. 802 (4th Cir. Feb. 23, 2007). The
1

It appears that Relator asserts a claim for retaliatory discharge under 31 U.S.C. §
3730(h), in addition to the qui tam claim. Relator is not prohibited form pursing the retaliatory
discharge claim pro se.

United States is the real party in interest and such dictates against pro se suits. See U.S. ex rel.
Milam v. Univ. Tex., 961 F.2d 46, 50 (4th Cir. 1992). Relator is given twenty-one (21) days from
the date of this order to procure counsel, as she cannot proceed pro se in a qui tam action.2
Counsel shall file a Notice of Appearance within that time period.
Further, Relator’s request for an extension to serve the complaint on the defendants is MOOT
at this time because Relator, proceeding pro se, has no right to serve the original complaint as filed.

s/ Thomas E. Rogers, III
Thomas E. Rogers, III
United States Magistrate Judge

December 10, 2018
Florence, South Carolina

2

Relator is put on notice that her action is subject to partial dismissal if pursued pro se.
See United States ex rel. Brooks v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 237 Fed. Appx. 802 (4th Cir. 2007).
2