Berg v. Obama

D.C. Circuit

Berg v. Obama

383 F. App'x 7

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedJune 30, 2010

DocketNo. 09-5362

StatusPublished

This text of 383 F. App'x 7 (Berg v. Obama) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Berg v. Obama, 383 F. App'x 7 (D.C. Cir. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

JUDGMENT

PER CURIAM.

This appeal was considered on the record from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and on the briefs filed by the parties. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2); D.C.Cir. Rule 34(j). It is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s orders filed June 9, 2009, and September 21, 2009, be affirmed. The district court properly dismissed appellant’s qui tam action. The False Claims Act “give[s] the government an unfettered right to dismiss [a qui tam] action,” Swift v. United States, 318 F.3d 250, 252 (D.C.Cir.2003), and the government’s decision to dismiss the action is not reviewable, see Hoyte v. American National Red Cross, 518 F.3d 61, 65 (D.C.Cir.2008). Appellant has not shown that he is entitled to discovery of the information the Department of Justice used in deciding to dismiss his qui tam action. See Swift, 318 F.3d at 254 (“[A] party is not entitled to discovery of information relating to prosecutorial decisions absent a substantial threshold showing.”) (citing United States v. Armstrong, 517 U.S. 456, 463, 116 S.Ct. 1480, 134 L.Ed.2d 687 (1996)). Nor has appellant demonstrated that the Department of Justice and the Attorney General have a [8]*8conflict of interest because the case involves claims against the President.

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published. The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after resolution of any timely petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc. See Fed. R.App. P. 41(b); D.C.Cir. Rule 41.

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

JUDGMENT

PER CURIAM.

This appeal was considered on the record from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and on the briefs filed by the parties. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2); D.C.Cir. Rule 34(j). It is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s orders filed June 9, 2009, and September 21, 2009, be affirmed. The district court properly dismissed appellant’s qui tam action. The False Claims Act “give[s] the government an unfettered right to dismiss [a qui tam] action,” Swift v. United States, 318 F.3d 250, 252 (D.C.Cir.2003), and the government’s decision to dismiss the action is not reviewable, see Hoyte v. American National Red Cross, 518 F.3d 61, 65 (D.C.Cir.2008). Appellant has not shown that he is entitled to discovery of the information the Department of Justice used in deciding to dismiss his qui tam action. See Swift, 318 F.3d at 254 (“[A] party is not entitled to discovery of information relating to prosecutorial decisions absent a substantial threshold showing.”) (citing United States v. Armstrong, 517 U.S. 456, 463, 116 S.Ct. 1480, 134 L.Ed.2d 687 (1996)). Nor has appellant demonstrated that the Department of Justice and the Attorney General have a [8]*8conflict of interest because the case involves claims against the President.

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published. The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after resolution of any timely petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc. See Fed. R.App. P. 41(b); D.C.Cir. Rule 41.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

383 F. App'x 7, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/berg-v-obama-cadc-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack