Agyeman v. Corrections Corp. of America

Ninth Circuit

Agyeman v. Corrections Corp. of America

143 F. App'x 66

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Agyeman v. Corrections Corp. of America. Read the opinion of the Court — 390 F.3d 1101 →

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit·Decided August 5, 2005·No. No. 04-16672; D.C. No. CV-03-01474-PHX-PGR·Published

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

**

Emmanuel Senyo Agyeman appeals pro se the district court’s order dismissing his qui tam action filed pursuant to the False Claims Act (“FCA”), 31 U.S.C. § 3729 et seq., alleging that Corrections Corporation of America fraudulently billed the United States for a portion of his detainment. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the statutory interpretation of the FCA, United States ex rel. Sequoia Orange Co. v. Baird-Neece Packing Corp., 151 F.3d 1139, 1143 (9th Cir.1998), and we affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Agyeman’s qui tam action because the government investigated his claims, and determined that they lacked merit, and notified Agyeman of its motion to dismiss, and then the court gave Agyeman an opportunity to be heard. See 31 U.S.C. § 3730(c)(2)(A); United States ex rel. Kelly v. Boeing Co., 9 F.3d 743, 753 (9th Cir.1993).

Agyeman’s contention that the government must intervene before it can move for dismissal is without merit. See 31 [67]*67U.S.C. § 8729(c)(2)(A); Kelly, 9 F.3d at 752.

AFFIRMED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

MEMORANDUM

**

Emmanuel Senyo Agyeman appeals pro se the district court’s order dismissing his qui tam action filed pursuant to the False Claims Act (“FCA”), 31 U.S.C. § 3729 et seq., alleging that Corrections Corporation of America fraudulently billed the United States for a portion of his detainment. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the statutory interpretation of the FCA, United States ex rel. Sequoia Orange Co. v. Baird-Neece Packing Corp., 151 F.3d 1139, 1143 (9th Cir.1998), and we affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Agyeman’s qui tam action because the government investigated his claims, and determined that they lacked merit, and notified Agyeman of its motion to dismiss, and then the court gave Agyeman an opportunity to be heard. See 31 U.S.C. § 3730(c)(2)(A); United States ex rel. Kelly v. Boeing Co., 9 F.3d 743, 753 (9th Cir.1993).

Agyeman’s contention that the government must intervene before it can move for dismissal is without merit. See 31 [67]*67U.S.C. § 8729(c)(2)(A); Kelly, 9 F.3d at 752.

AFFIRMED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

Agyeman v. Corrections Corp. of America, 143 F. App'x 66 (9th Cir. 2005).

Pincite

143 F. App'x 66 (Agyeman v. Corrections Corp. of America) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related